UC-NRLF 


SB    22    flflh 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA 


BY 
0.  K.  PATTON 


•RMTTTKD    TO    THE    FACULTY    OP    Tfl  I  ATE    COLLEGE     OF    THK 

STATE    rNlVKRRITY    OF    IOWA    IN    PARTIAL    FULFILLMENT 
OK    THK    REQUIREMENTS    FOB    THE    DEGREE 
OF     DOCTOR     OF     PHILOSOPHY 


IOWA  CITY  IOWA 
1915 


CO 


o 
o 


EXCHANGE 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA 


BY 
0.  K.  PATTON 


SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTY    OF    THE    GRADUATE    COLLEGE    OF    THE 

STATE    UNIVERSITY   OF    IOWA    IN    PARTIAL    FULFILLMENT 

OF    THE    REQUIREMENTS    FOR    THE    DEGREE 

OF    DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 


IOWA  CITY  IOWA 
1915 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE 

IN  these  days  there  is  much  said  and  written  concerning 
home  rule  in  local  government.  And  yet,  home  rule  is 
not  a  new  idea  in  America  —  a  proposed  experiment  in 
government.  On  the  contrary,  home  rule  has  long  been 
a  cherished  political  heritage.  But  how  many  people  to- 
day have  a  clear  notion  of  what  home  rule  means !  What 
is  home  rule  in  Iowa! 

To  answer  this  question  is  the  purpose  of  the  pages 
that  follow.  Neither  the  time  nor  the  means  have  been 
available  for  an  exhaustive  study  of  all  of  the  phases  of 
home  rule,  either  in  this  State  or  in  the  other  Common- 
wealths of  the  Union.  An  attempt  has  been  made,  how- 
ever, to  trace  briefly  the  development  of  home  rule  as  a 
factor  in  local  government,  to  indicate  the  present  posi- 
tion of  the  local  areas  in  Iowa  and  the  resulting  evils  of 
special  legislation,  to  point  out  the  necessity  and  effects 
of  classification,  to  show  the  impracticability  of  rigid  uni- 
formity in  the  government  of  local  areas,  to  present  the 
home  rule  charter  system  in  the  light  of  its  successes  and 
shortcomings,  and  to  suggest  a  general  division  between 
State  and  local  functions.  The  real  scope  and  limitations 
of  the  paper  can  best  be  indicated  by  pointing  out  the 
actual  studies  made  by  the  writer  in  its  preparation. 

In  the  first  place,  the  writings  of  the  leading  authori- 
ties on  local  government  in  the  United  States  were 
consulted  and  their  discussions  of  home  rule  in  local  gov- 

324138  7 


8  APPLIED  HISTORY 

eminent  carefully  analyzed.  Second,  the  statutes  and 
court  reports  of  Iowa  were  searched  to  ascertain  our  own 
experience  in  local  government  and  to  obtain  illustrative 
materials.  Third,  the  constitutions  and  statutes  of  the 
thirteen  States  which  have  adopted  the  home  rule  charter 
system  were  carefully  analyzed  and  compared.  Fourth, 
the  actual  working  of  this  system  was  gathered  from 
court  decisions  in  the  various  States,  from  numerous  arti- 
cles in  The  Proceedings  of  the  Conference  for  Good  City 
Government  in  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of 
Political  and  Social  Science,  in  The  Political  Science 
Quarterly,  in  The  American  Political  Science  Review,  in 
the  National  Municipal  Review,  in  The  American  City, 
and  in  other  current  periodicals,  and  in  the  charters  of 
over  fifty  of  the  leading  home  rule  cities. 

The  writer  wishes  first  of  all  to  thank  Professor  Benj. 
F.  Shambaugh,  Superintendent  of  The  State  Historical 
Society  of  Iowa,  under  whose  suggestion  this  study  was 
attempted ;  whatever  merit  the  paper  may  possess  is  due 
largely  to  his  counsel,  advice,  and  editing.  Upon  the 
writings  of  Professors  Frank  J.  Goodnow,  Delos  F.  Wil- 
cox,  and  Ellis  P.  Oberholtzer  the  writer  has  relied  espe- 
cially in  preparing  the  second  chapter  of  the  paper.  Mr. 
Lewis  H.  Brown  of  the  staff  of  The  State  Historical 
Society  of  Iowa  gave  valuable  service  in  gathering  mate- 
rial from  the  statutes  and  court  reports  of  Iowa;  and 
Miss  Euth  Gallaher  assisted  in  verifying  the  manuscript. 

0.  K.  PATTON 

THE  STATE  UNIVERSITY  OF  IOWA 
IOWA  CITY  IOWA 


CONTENTS 

I.    INTRODUCTION:  THE  PROBLEM  OF  HOME  RULE      .  11 

II.    HOME  RULE  IN  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  LOCAL  GOV- 
ERNMENT        .......  16 

HOME  RULE  IN  THE  EARLY  LOCAL  AREAS   .      .  17 

EFFECT  OF  SPECIAL  LEGISLATION  UPON  HOME  RULE  22 

III.  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  AREAS  IN  IOWA    ...  31 

THE  IOWA  ADMINISTRATIVE  SYSTEM    ...  31 

THE  LEGISLATURE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  AREAS  36 

IV.  THE  HOME  RULE  CHARTER  SYSTEM      ...  44 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  HOME  RULE  CHARTER  SYSTEM       .  44 

EXTENSION  OF  THE  HOME  RULE  CHARTER  SYSTEM  49 

V.     GROWTH  OF  HOME  RULE  CHARTERS      ...  53 

HOME  RULE  CHARTERS  IN  MISSOURI   ...  53 

HOME  RULE  CHARTERS  IN  CALIFORNIA            .             .  55 

HOME  RULE  CHARTERS  IN  WASHINGTON       .             .  59 

HOME  RULE  CHARTERS  IN  MINNESOTA            .             .  61 

HOME  RULE  CHARTERS  IN  COLORADO               .             .  63 

HOME  RULE  CHARTERS  IN  OTHER  STATES      .             .  64 

OTHER  HOME  RULE  DEVELOPMENTS       .           .             .  69 

VI.    ANALYSIS  OF  HOME  RULE  CHARTER  SYSTEMS        .  73 

LOCAL  AREAS  ENTITLED  TO  ADOPT  CHARTERS            .  73 

INITIATING  CHARTER  PROCEEDINGS     ...  74 

THE  CHARTER  BOARDS 82 

9 


10  APPLIED  HISTORY 

SUBMISSION  TO  THE  PEOPLE      ....  84 

ADOPTION  BY  THE  PEOPLE            ....  85 

THE  VETO  OF  CHARTERS               ....  86 

THE  AMENDMENT  OF  CHARTERS            ...  86 

VII.     STATUS  OF  THE  HOME  RULE  CHARTER  LOCAL  AREAS  89 

VIII.     STATE  AND  LOCAL  FUNCTIONS      ....  98 

THE  REAL  PROBLEM  OF  HOME  RULE     ...  98 

THE  STATE  FUNCTIONS 101 

THE  LOCAL  FUNCTIONS 103 

THE  PROBLEM   SUMMARIZED       ....  105 
THE  HOME  RULE  CHARTER  SYSTEM  AND  THE  DI- 
VISION OF  FUNCTIONS               ....  106 
THE  DIVISION  OF   GOVERNMENTAL  FUNCTIONS  IN 

IOWA 107 

IX.     SUGGESTIONS  FOR  HOME  RULE  REFORM  IN  IOWA     .  Ill 

NOTES  AND  REFERENCES                        .                  .  119 


INTRODUCTION:  THE  PROBLEM  OF  HOME  RULE 

IN  its  broadest  sense  home  rule  means  self-government  — 
the  right  of  the  people  within  a  given  area  to  govern 
themselves.  Thus,  as  a  principle  of  local  autonomy,  home 
rule  has  a  very  wide  application  in  politics  and  adminis- 
tration. But  in  the  government  of  a  Commonwealth  like 
Iowa  the  scope  of  home  rule  is  greatly  narrowed.  Home 
rule  in  Iowa  means  self-government  in  various  political 
subdivisions  of  the  State :  it  is  a  plan  of  local  government 
in  which  the  people  of  a  particular  community  —  a  city  or 
a  county  —  are  given  complete  control  over  purely  local 
matters.  This  is  sometimes  called  municipal  home  rule. 
Simply  stated,  home  rule  in  Iowa  is  a  problem  of  local 
self-government.1 

For  the  two-fold  purpose  of  carrying  on  local  func- 
tions and  of  providing  local  administrative  agents  for  the 
Commonwealth,  there  have  been  created  in  Iowa  various 
subdivisions  —  local  areas  for  governmental  purposes. 
These  local  areas  comprise  the  counties,  the  townships, 
the  school  districts,  the  towns,  and  the  cities  of  the  State. 
Thus  local  government  in  Iowa  is  simply  the  government 
of  these  various  local  areas  or  political  subdivisions :  it  is 
not  unlike  local  government  in  other  parts  of  the  United 
States. 

The  county,  the  town,  and  the  city  in  Iowa  are  bodies 
corporate  and  politic  for  civil  and  political  purposes; 
while  the  school  districts  are  political  corporations  for 

11 


12  APPLIED  HISTORY 

the  purpose  of  school  administration.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  township  in  Iowa  is  not  a  body  politic  and  corporate : 
the  courts  have  held  it  to  be  a  mere  subdivision  of  the 
State  for  governmental  purposes.  From  the  viewpoint 
of  Political  Science  it  is  more  properly  classified  as  a 
quasi-corporation.  Indeed,  from  this  viewpoint  the 
county,  the  township,  and  the  school  district  are  all  quasi- 
corporations.  That  is  to  say,  these  local  areas  are  invol- 
untary political  or  civil  divisions  of  the  State  "created 
by  general  laws  to  aid  in  the  administration  of  govern- 
ment. "2  In  the  scale  of  corporate  existence  they  occupy 
a  low  place.  On  the  other  hand,  cities  and  towns  in  Iowa 
are  to  be  classed  as  municipal  corporations  because  they 
rank  high  in  the  scale  of  corporate  existence  and  because 
they  are  voluntary  organizations,  instead  of  involuntary 
like  the  other  local  areas  of  the  State.3 

A  further  discussion  of  the  differences  in  public  cor- 
porations would  be  unprofitable  in  this  connection  since 
the  subject  is  one  of  the  most  complex  and  abstruse  in 
American  law.  It  is  important  to  remember,  however, 
that  from  the  viewpoint  of  Political  Science  the  counties, 
townships,  and  school  districts,  as  well  as  the  cities  and 
towns  of  Iowa,  are  public  corporations. 

Home  rule  in  local  government  has  several  aspects.4 
The  privilege  of  the  locality  to  select  from  its  members 
the  officers  who  are  to  administer  the  law  in  the  local  area, 
irrespective  of  whether  the  laws  are  State  or  local  regu- 
lations, is  one  aspect  of  the  problem.  This  element  of 
home  rule  is  now  found  in  Iowa  as  well  as  in  all  other 
States :  indeed,  it  is  firmly  established  as  a  principle  in 
the  American  political  system.  A  second  phase  of  home 
rule  which  is  commonly  recognized  in  Iowa  at  the  present 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  13 

time,  and  which  has  been  universally  adopted  in  America, 
is  the  right  of  the  people  of  a  local  area  to  vote  upon  the 
operation  within  that  local  area  of  general  laws  passed  by 
the  legislature  of  the  State.  (For  a  discussion  of  the 
referendum  in  the  local  areas  of  Iowa,  see  Mr.  Van  der 
Zee 's  paper  on  Direct  Legislation  in  Iowa  which  appears 
in  this  series.)  Another  aspect  of  the  problem  is  the 
power  of  the  local  community  to  determine  the  form  of  its 
own  governmental  organization.  This  feature  of  home 
rule,  which  at  present  is  found  in  only  twelve  of  the 
American  States,  does  not  exist  in  Iowa.  Finally,  the 
authority  of  the  local  area  to  plan  the  scope  of  local  activ- 
ities within  a  given  field  which  has  been  delimited  by  the 
State  constitutes  a  fourth  aspect  of  home  rule  in  local 
government. 

The  field  of  home  rule  —  determined  by  a  line  of  de- 
marcation between  State  and  local  functions  —  has  not 
been  definitely  defined  in  our  governmental  system,  al- 
though the  courts  have  attempted  to  classify,  to  a  certain 
extent,  State  and  local  functions.  At  the  same  time  it 
must  be  admitted  that  the  classification  of  State  and  local 
functions  is  not  more  difficult  than  the  separation  of  State^ 
and  Federal  powers.  The  third  and  fourth  aspects  of 
home  rule  as  above  noted  constitute  the  newer  phases  of 
the  problem  and  lie  at  the  heart  of  the  modern  movement 
for  home  rule  in  local  government  —  a  movement  which 
is  sometimes  referred  to  as  the  "Missouri  Idea".5  ^ 

In  America  two  forces  are  constantly  at  work  in  polit- 
ical developments  —  democracy  and  efficiency  or  self- 
government  and  centralization.  How  to  obtain  an  effi- 
cient democracy  is  the  real  problem  of  the  hour.  Up  to 
the  present  time  efficiency  has  been  sacrificed  for  self- 


14  APPLIED  HISTORY 

government.  But  to-day  the  tendency  is  toward  central- 
ization and  away  from  self-government.6  And  yet,  the 
best  government  may  not  be  the  most  efficient,  and  the 
best  government  may  not  be  the  most  democratic.  It  is 
true  that  a  good  government  must  be  both  democratic  and 
efficient;  but  since  all  government  must  be  administered 
by  men,  that  government  will  be  best  which  is  so  organ- 
ized that  allowance  is  made  for  the  frailties  of  human 
nature.  Moreover,  experience,  particularly  in  the  work- 
ings of  the  Federal  system,  would  seem  to  indicate  that 
the  best  government  for  Americans  is  a  compromise  be- 
tween the  principles  of  self-government  on  the  one  hand 
and  those  of  centralization  on  the  other. 

In  every  form  or  grade  of  government,  whether  it  be  a 
pure  democracy  or  a  highly  centralized  monarchy,  there 
are  two  fundamental  functions  —  the  determination  of 
public  policy  and  the  execution  of  the  policy  determined. 
The  first  is  legislative  and  the  second  is  administrative. 
From  the  preceding  paragraphs  it  will  be  readily  per- 
ceived that  the  government  of  local  areas  in  the  United 
States  is  at  present  primarily  a  matter  of  administration. 
Consequently,  a  study  of  home  rule  in  Iowa  is  for  the 
most  part  a  study  in  local  administration,  although  some 
attention  must  be  paid  to  the  location  and  limitations  of 
the  policy  determining  authority.7 

Heretofore  nearly  all  reforms  in  local  government 
have  been  reforms  in  the  organization  of  the  local  areas. 
This  has  been  true  especially  of  city  government.  The 
people  have  experimented  with  one  plan  after  another, 
bringing  forth  a  new  scheme  of  city  organization  nearly 
every  year.  At  present  they  are  busily  engaged  in  watch- 
ing the  development  of  the  city-manager  plan  of  organ- 
ization. And  while  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  city 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  15 

conditions  have  been  improved  by  the  reorganization  of 
the  government,  it  is  likewise  true  that  reorganization 
alone  can  not  solve  all  municipal  problems.  Neither  will 
it  solve  the  problems  of  the  county  or  of  the  township, 
although  something  has  been  accomplished  along  this  line 
in  one  or  two  of  the  States.  Eeorganization  of  the  local 
areas  does  not  strike  at  the  basic  difficulty  in  the  problem 
of  local  government.  Hence,  the  improvement  of  condi- 
tions by  this  reform  has  been  very  limited.8 

The  basic  defect  in  the  present  scheme  of  local  govern- 
ment is  the  confusion  of  State  and  local  functions:  the 
organic  law  fails  to  map  out  a  distinct  field  for  local  action 
and  a  distinct  field  for  State  action.  Moreover,  since 
there  is  a  vital  connection  between  local  government  and 
State  government,  a  local  administration  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  the  State  administration  can  not  be  main- 
tained. The  sovereignty  of  the  State  must  be  preserved ; 
and  all  concrete  attempts  at  reform  in  local  government 
must  of  necessity  rest  upon  a  definite  and  clear-cut  sep- 
aration of  State  and  local  functions.  This  is  the  problem 
of  home  rule  in  Iowa.  It  can  be  interrogated  thus :  What 
is  the  sphere  in  which  local  political  corporations  in  Iowa 
should  be  allowed  to  move  largely  uncontrolled  by  the 
State  government,  and  what  is  the  sphere  in  which  the 
activities  of  these  local  areas  should  be  completely  under 
the  control  of  the  State?9 


II 

HOME  EULE  IN  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  LOCAL 
GOVERNMENT 

THE  order  of  social  and  political  progress  has  always 
been  from  the  simple  to  the  complex,  from  the  unorgan- 
ized to  the  organized  —  a  development  from  low  function 
to  high  function,  from  few  activities  to  many  activities. 
And  so,  in  the  field  of  local  government  one  is  not  sur- 
prised to  find  that  institutional  developments  show  the 
existence  of  this  same  order.  Local  government  is  much 
different  to-day  from  what  it  was  in  colonial  times.  It  is 
true  that  in  one  respect  the  conditions  in  Iowa  are  not 
unlike  the  conditions  in  the  pre-revolutionary  period:  in 
those  early  times  there  were  no  large  cities,  and  there  are 
no  large  cities  in  Iowa  to-day.  This  State  is  for  the  most 
part  rural,  and  the  original  colonies  were  almost  wholly 
rural.  But  other  conditions  in  Iowa  differ  widely  from 
those  which  prevailed  in  colonial  days.  The  functions  of 
local  government  have  undergone  a  wonderful  develop- 
ment, as  have  also  the  functions  of  both  State  and  na- 
tional government. 

In  colonial  days  the  problem  of  lighting  was  not  a 
public  function.  Each  household  had  its  own  lighting 
system  consisting  of  one  or  more  tallow  dips;  and  the 
highways,  when  lighted,  were  lighted  by  means  of  a  lan- 
tern. Gas  was  unknown  and  so  there  were  no  one  dollar 
gas  fights.  Moreover,  the  water  supply  was  on  a  similar 
basis :  every  backyard  had  its  well  and  every  local  com- 

16 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  17 

munity  its  corner  pump.  Since  the  population  was  not 
congested,  sewage  was  not  improperly  disposed  of;  there- 
fore, unhygienic  water  was  not  a  daily  menace.  Further- 
more, men  walked  from  their  work  to  their  homes  or 
provided  their  own  means  of  transportation:  they  were 
not  dependent  upon  public  service  corporations  or  public- 
owned  concerns.  Indeed,  no  one  thought  of  government 
service,  in  any  of  these  fields. 

Conditions  have  changed,  and  even  in  rural  Iowa  the 
town  pump,  the  tallow  dip,  and  private  means  of  trans- 
portation have  all  but  disappeared.  Moreover,  public 
health  and  safety,  poor  relief,  education,  the  improve- 
ment of  highways,  sewage  disposal,  the  establishment  of 
public  parks,  play-grounds,  and  baths,  the  erection  of 
public  waterworks  and  lighting  systems,  the  providing  of 
urban,  suburban,  and  interurban  transportation,  the 
building  of  docks  and  wharfs,  the  keeping  of  markets  and 
abattoirs,  and  the  laying  out  of  cemeteries  have  all  come 
within  the  horizon  of  governmental  activity.  Indeed, 
many  of  these  activities  have  developed  to  such  an  extent 
that  they  have  outgrown  the  bounds  of  local  government 
and  are  now  without  question  looked  upon  as  State 
functions. 

HOME  EULE  IN  THE  EAELY  LOCAL  ARE  Agio 

For  the  origin  of  local  government  in  America  one 
must  turn  to  Europe ;  for  like  nearly  all  American  polit- 
ical institutions,  the  areas  of  local  government  in  the 
United  States  find  their  precursors  in  the  English  polit- 
ical system.  The  more  important  national  states  of 
Europe  in  early  times  were  not  divided  into  local  areas 
for  the  purpose  of  local  government:  the  subdivisions 
were  created  for  the  purpose  of  state  administration. 


18  APPLIED  HISTORY 

With  the  growth  of  large  aggregations  of  people  within 
limited  areas,  it  became  necessary  to  provide  for  some 
kind  of  local  action,  since  the  crowding  together  of  vast 
numbers  of  people  brought  changes  in  economic  and  so- 
cial conditions.  And  so,  the  city  was  the  first  local  area 
to  be  given  powers  of  local  action,  through  the  creation  of 
the  municipal  corporation.11 

The  origin  of  the  municipal  corporation  is  discovered 
in  the  granting  of  certain  privileges  to  urban  centers  by 
the  state.  In  the  early  Germanic  nations  no  municipal 
corporations  existed.  What  incorporated  cities  there 
were  among  the  Teutons  came  as  a  result  of  the  Eoman 
invasion.  After  the  overthrow  of  Eome  the  cities  became 
merely  a  part  of  the  larger  local  areas  of  the  state  in 
which  they  were  located  and  which  existed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  state  administration  only ;  they  had  no  local  func- 
tions. Later  on,  however,  local  areas  on  the  continent  did 
come  to  assume  a  corporate  character.  The  idea  of  local 
self-government  originated  in  the  feudal  system,  and 
when  combined  with  the  Eoman  conception  of  the  cor- 
porate capacity  of  governmental  areas  the  modern  munic- 
ipal corporation  came  into  being.  The  feudal  system 
reached  its  highest  development  on  the  continent ;  conse- 
quently the  municipal  corporation  developed  in  conti- 
nental Europe  before  it  did  in  insular  England.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  establishment  of  political  corporations 
in  England  was  the  product  of  continental  influence.12 

The  first  municipal  corporation  established  in  Eng- 
land was  Kingston-upon-Hull,  which  was  incorporated  in 
1429.  The  establishment  of  other  political  corporations 
did  not  take  place  until  a  much  later  date :  counties  were 
not  incorporated  until  1888.  The  incorporation  of  munic- 
ipalities did  not  become  a  general  system  in  England 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  19 

until  the  reign  of  the  Tudors.  During  the  period  from 
1640  to  1688  the  municipal  corporations  of  England  were 
mere  pawns  in  the  game  of  national  politics.  They  be- 
came incapable  of  efficient  administrative  work,  and  with 
the  increase  in  governmental  functions  due  to  the  Ref- 
ormation the  problem  of  state  administration  became 
more  and  more  acute.  Finally,  the  state  provided  for  the 
administration  of  many  functions  by  administrative  offi- 
cers of  the  state  operating  within  the  boundaries  of  the 
municipal  corporations  as  administrative  areas.  This 
was  the  system  provided  for  the  administration  of  poor 
relief,  of  sanitation,  and  of  education.  And  not  only  were 
state  functions  thus  administered  by  special  state  officers, 
but  municipal  functions  were  cared  for  in  the  same  way. 
When  it  became  necessary  to  light  and  pave  the  streets 
of  certain  cities  the  function  was  entrusted  to  state  agen- 
cies. Thus  the  field  of  local  activity  became  very  limited 
in  England,  due  to  the  peculiar  political  conditions  which 
then  existed.13 

It  was  from  this  early  English  type  of  municipal  cor- 
poration that  the  American  municipality  developed.  As 
has  been  pointed  out,  the  sphere  of  its  activity  was  so 
limited  that  the  municipal  corporation  did  not  discharge 
all  of  the  functions  of  local  government,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  administration  of  state  functions  which  is  so  common 
to-day  in  the  American  Commonwealths.  The  reason  for 
thus  limiting  the  field  of  municipal  activity  in  early  Eng- 
land is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  early  municipal 
corporations  of  Europe  everywhere  fell  into  the  hands  of 
a  few  persons  and  became  in  the  course  of  time  oli- 
garchial governments.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  early 
municipal  corporations  were  incorporated  in  England  by 
granting  a  charter  to  a  few  of  the  citizens  of  the  borough 


20  APPLIED  HISTORY 

to  be  incorporated:  the  grant  was  not  made  to  all  of  the 
citizens  of  the  borough.  The  result  was  the  retarding  of 
the  development  of  a  large  sphere  of  municipal  activity.14 

But  mere  limitation  upon  local  action  was  not  satis- 
factory: reforms  came  in  the  eighteenth  century,  when 
drastic  steps  were  taken  and  new  incorporation  acts  were 
passed  in  France  in  1800,  in  Prussia  in  1808,  and  in  Eng- 
land in  1835.  Indeed,  the  legislation  of  the  eighteenth 
century  still  forms  the  basis  for  municipal  organization 
in  Europe.  It  dealt  the  death  blow  to  oligarchical  govern- 
ment by  taking  away  from  municipalities  the  power  to 
determine  their  own  form  of  government  —  a  power 
which  they  had  theretofore  enjoyed.  Moreover,  this  right 
of  determining  the  form  of  municipal  organization  is,  as 
has  been  already  pointed  out,  one  of  the  phases  of  modern 
home  rule  in  local  government.15 

For  the  purposes  of  this  discussion  it  will  not  be 
necessary  to  trace  further  the  long  conflict  between  the 
state  and  the  municipality  for  the  control  of  certain  gov- 
ernmental functions  —  a  struggle  which  was  carried  on 
throughout  the  Middle  Ages.  Most  of  the  activities  for 
which  the  city  contended  during  that  period  have  long 
since  become  well  established  as  state  functions.  Never- 
theless, it  is  important  to  note  that  by  the  nineteenth 
century  the  city  had  taken  on  a  well  defined  dual  capacity : 
it  had  become  an  administrative  agent  of  the  state  as  well 
as  an  organization  for  the  satisfaction  of  local  needs.16 

The  English  municipal  act  above  referred  to  is  known 
as  the  Local  Government  Act  of  1835.  It  forms,  with 
certain  amendments  and  additions,  the  municipal  law  of 
England  to-day.  Such  briefly  is  the  historical  back- 
ground of  the  early  American  political  corporation.1 


17 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  21 

The  early  American  political  corporation  was  not  un- 
like its  predecessor  the  English  borough :  it  was  primari- 
ly an  organization  for  carrying  on  purely  local  functions, 
namely,  the  management  and  control  of  property.  To  be 
sure,  it  was  to  some  extent  an  administrative  agent  of  the 
State,  for  like  the  English  borough  it  discharged  certain 
police  and  judicial  functions  for  the  State.18  But  under 
the  influence  of  the  democratic  ideas  with  which  the  new 
world  abounded,  the  political  corporation  underwent  sev- 
eral changes  in  America.  For  example,  in  the  United 
States  decentralization  has  been  carried  farther  than  in 
England  —  a  condition  that  was  brought  about  by  the  ex- 
tension of  the  elective  principle  to  the  officers  within  the 
local  areas.  It  is  by  this  arrangement  that  local  officers 
have  become  largely  independent  of  State  officers ;  and  as 
a  result  the  power  of  the  legislature  over  local  areas  in 
the  United  States  has  been  very  much  increased.  Indeed, 
it  is  only  through  such  a  method  that  anything  like  uni- 
formity in  administration  could  be  obtained.19 

Again,  the  idea  of  the  corporate  character  of  local 
areas  has  been  carried  farther  in  this  country  than  in 
England.  Towns  were  incorporated  in  Massachusetts  as 
early  as  1785  ;20  while  in  New  York  counties  and  towns 
were  both  fully  incorporated  by  1829.21  Indeed,  even  be- 
fore 1829  the  courts  of  New  York  had  held  towns  to  be  of 
a  corporate  character.22  This  decision  was  undoubtedly 
due  to  that  European  influence  which  was  responsible  for 
the  corporate  character  of  the  old  Dutch  towns  of  New 
York  —  towns  which,  it  may  be  said,  influenced  consider- 
ably the  character  of  municipal  organization  in  the  Col- 
onies. As  a  matter  of  fact  there  has  been  a  nearer 
approach  in  the  United  States  to  the  continental  idea  of 
the  corporate  character  of  local  areas  than  to  the  English 


22  APPLIED  HISTORY 

conception.  In  England  the  purpose  back  of  incorpora- 
tion by  charters  was  to  make  the  municipalities  artificial 
subjects  of  the  private  law,  so  that  they  could  more  readi- 
ly own  and  control  property;23  for  prior  to  their  incor- 
poration the  old  towns  and  counties  of  England  suffered 
the  inconvenience  of  not  being  able  to  become  the  grantees 
of  estates.24  The  effect  of  incorporation  upon  these  local 
areas  in  America,  however,  was  somewhat  other  than  the 
purpose  for  which  they  were  incorporated :  it  brought  out 
and  gave  prominence  to  the  private  side  of  local  organiza- 
tion.25 Incorporation  had  little  to  do  with  the  political 
character  of  the  boroughs  in  England.  But  this  has  not 
been  true  of  local  government  in  the  United  States ;  for 
here  the  political  corporation  has  become  the  organ  of 
local  self-government. 

EFFECT  OF  SPECIAL  LEGISLATION  UPON  HOME  BULE 

In  order  to  appreciate  fully  the  part  which  special 
legislation  has  played  in  the  development  of  local  govern- 
ment in  the  United  States,  it  is  necessary  to  understand 
the  two  different  methods  of  incorporation  which  have 
been  used  in  this  country.  The  first  and  oldest  method  of 
incorporating  local  areas  was  by  means  of  special  char- 
ters.26 The  first  municipal  charter  of  this  character  was 
granted  to  New  York  in  1665.27  Moreover,  the  colonial 
municipal  charters  were  granted  by  the  Governors  in- 
stead of  by  the  legislatures  —  in  accordance  with  the 
English  practice  of  making  royal  grants  to  boroughs.28 
After  the  Eevolution  municipal  charters  were  granted  by 
the  State  legislatures29 — that  is  to  say,  the  charter  of 
incorporation  became  a  statute  instead  of  an  executive 
grant. 

The  granting  of  municipal  charters  by  the  State  legis- 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  23 

lature  brought  about  a  revolution  in  the  relation  between 
the  city  and  the  legislature:  through  this  practice  an 
opening  was  made  for  large  legislative  interference  in 
local  affairs.  Under  the  system  of  royal  grants  munic- 
ipal corporations  were  nearly  free  from  legislative  inter- 
ference. Indeed,  the  royal  charter  was  considered  as 
partaking  of  the  nature  of  a  contract.  After  the  Revolu- 
tionary War  municipal  corporations  came  completely 
under  the  control  of  the  State  legislatures  through  the 
development  of  the  system  of  special  incorporation. 
Under  this  system  the  growth  of  special  legislation  was 
rapid,  for  such  legislation  was  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
government  of  local  areas.  It  will  be  remembered, 
furthermore,  that  the  early  American  municipal  corpora- 
tion had  very  limited  powers,  and  all  acts  beyond  the 
scope  of  the  powers  granted  were  void.  Hence,  the 
municipalities  found  it  necessary  to  apply  to  the  legis- 
lature for  an  increase  in  power  in  order  to  exercise  any 
function  not  conferred  by  the  charter.  These  grants  of 
powers  were  made  from  time  to  time  by  special  acts  be- 
cause the  powers  which  had  been  conferred  upon  no  two 
municipal  corporations  were  the  same  —  a  situation 
which  was  due  to  the  fact  that  originally  all  municipal 
charters  themselves  were  granted  by  special  acts.30 

Within  recent  years  the  legislatures  of  a  large  number 
of  States  have  been  compelled  to  abandon  special  incor- 
poration and  to  pass  general  incorporation  acts.  In  this 
respect  America  has  followed  the  British  example  of 
1835.  Moreover,  this  change  in  the  method  of  incorporat- 
ing local  areas  in  the  various  States  has  been  accom- 
plished for  the  most  part  by  constitutional  amendments 
—  which  were  intended  to  do  away  with  that  great  bulk  of 
local  and  special  legislation  for  the  government  of  local 


24  APPLIED  HISTORY 

areas  which  had  led  to  so  much  political  manipulation  in 
our  legislatures  and  which  had  become  such  a  great  bur- 
den upon  the  time  and  energy  of  legislators.  In  some 
cases  the  amendment  appeared  as  a  prohibition  against 
special  incorporation,  while  in  others  the  legislature  was 
compelled  to  pass  a  general  incorporation  act.  General 
incorporation  acts  resulting  from  constitutional  amend- 
ments usually  did  away  with  all  existing  charters,  or 
made  certain  exceptions  and  then  enacted  a  general  law 
for  all  municipalities.  Iowa,  itself,  offers  a  good  example 
of  the  transition  from  special  incorporation  to  general 
incorporation.31 

During  the  Territorial  period  and  under  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1846  cities  in  Iowa  were  governed  by  a  special 
charter  system,32  under  which  legislative  amendment  of 
special  charters  was  frequent.33  The  city  of  Dubuque 
may  be  taken  as  an  illustration.  In  1840  Dubuque  was 
granted  a  special  charter  with  a  council  of  six  members. 
But  during  the  early  history  of  this  municipality  the 
council  was  changed  from  six  members  to  thirteen,  from 
thirteen  to  six,  from  six  to  eleven,  and  finally  in  1857 
provision  was  made  for  a  council  consisting  of  two  mem- 
bers from  each  ward.34  In  Iowa,  as  in  other  States,  the 
granting  of  special  charters  did  not  prove  to  be  a  very 
satisfactory  method  of  handling  the  problem  of  local 
government:  a  great  amount  of  time  was  spent  in  log- 
rolling and  lobbying  for  special  privileges  in  connection 
with  the  granting  of  the  charters. 

As  a  result  of  experience  under  this  system  the  Iowa 
constitutional  convention  of  1857  inserted  a  clause  in  the 
Constitution  of  1857  prohibiting  the  legislature  from 
granting  special  charters.35  Cities  and  towns  already 
acting  under  special  charters  were,  however,  allowed  to 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  25 

continue  to  operate  under  these  instruments  with  certain 
modifications  found  in  the  general  incorporating  act  of 
1858.36'  Of  course  they  have  been  subject  to  subsequent 
legislation  by  the  General  Assembly.  Under  this  ar- 
rangement, moreover,  special  charter  cities  and  towns 
were  permitted  to  surrender  their  charters  and  come 
under  the  general  incorporation  act;37  and  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  nearly  all  the  Iowa  cities  and  towns  have  surren- 
dered their  special  charters.  Indeed,  Dubuque,  Daven- 
port, Muscatine,  Glenwood,  and  Wapello  are  the  only 
municipalities  which  still  continue  to  operate  under  spe- 
cial charters  granted  before  1857.38 

In  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution 
of  1857  the  Seventh  General  Assembly  passed  a  general 
incorporation  law  similar  to  the  Ohio  act  of  1852,  which 
classified  cities  and  towns  according  to  their  population. 
It  appears  as  Chapter  51  in  the  Iowa  Revision  of  1860. 
According  to  its  provisions  the  municipalities  of  the 
State  were  grouped  into  (a)  cities  of  the  first  class,  (b) 
cities  of  the  second  class,  and  (c)  towns.  All  cities  hav- 
ing a  population  of  at  least  15,000  were  made  cities  of  the 
first  class ;  municipalities  with  a  population  ranging  from 
2000  to  15,000  were  classified  as  cities  of  the  second  class ; 
while  the  smaller  urban  centers  with  populations  under 
2000  were  graded  as  towns.39  This  general  incorporation 
act,  with  certain  amendments  and  additions,  has  remained 
in  force  until  the  present  day  —  the  most  important  modi- 
fication of  its  provisions  being  made  in  1907  when  com- 
mission government  was  established  for  certain  cities  at 
their  option.40 

The  original  classification  of  municipalities  into  three 
grades  —  cities  of  the  first  class,  cities  of  the  second  class, 
and  towns  —  had  for  its  purpose  the  grouping  of  urban 


26  APPLIED  HISTORY 

centers  so  that  legislation  relative  to  the  number  of  of- 
ficials, the  method  of  selecting  officials,  and  the  powers 
granted  might  be  had  in  accordance  with  the  needs  of  the 
different  communities  under  a  system  of  general  incor- 
poration. Moreover,  this  was  the  policy  which  had  been 
followed  in  other  States  where  general  incorporation  had 
been  adopted.  But  the  system  of  classifying  cities  under 
acts  of  general  incorporation  has  led  to  a  great  deal  of 
abuse  by  legislative  bodies  and  to  much  confusing  con- 
struction by  the  courts. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  constitutional  limitations 
placed  upon  legislative  authority  in  its  control  of  political 
corporations:  (1)  those  restrictions  imposed  by  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution  upon  all  legislative  action;  and  (2) 
those  special  limitations  found  in  the  various  State  Con- 
stitutions.41 The  second  class  of  limitations  is  by  far  the 
more  important ;  and  it  is  to  this  class  that  the  provisions 
of  the  Iowa  Constitution  forbidding  special  incorporation 
belong. 

It  appears  that  in  the  first  State  constitutions  there 
were  few  limitations  on  legislative  power,  and  especially 
was  this  true  in  regard  to  the  authority  to  regulate  munic- 
ipal government.  But  by  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth 
century  such  limitations  had  become  quite  popular;  and 
nowadays  the  adoption  of  a  new  Constitution  or  the  re- 
vision of  an  old  one  means  the  insertion  of  large  limita- 
tions upon  legislative  interference  in  municipal  affairs. 
The  Ohio  Constitution  of  1851  affords  an  interesting  illus- 
tration. This  instrument  provided  that  the  legislature 
should  not  incorporate  cities  by  special  acts ;  and  so  in 
1852  the  legislature  passed  a  general  municipal  code  for 
Ohio  cities  in  accordance  with  which  the  nine  cities  of  the 
State  were  divided  into  two  classes.  Like  the  general  in- 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  27 

corporation  act  of  Iowa  in  1858  different  regulations  were 
applied  to  these  two  classes  according  to  their  needs. 
But  very  soon  the  legislature  began  to  pass  special  legis- 
lation under  the  guise  of  a  further  classification  of  cities. 
All  cities  of  the  first  class,  having  a  population  of  a  cer- 
tain number,  were  empowered  to  discharge  a  certain 
function.  In  the  course  of  time,  Ohio  cities  came  to  be 
divided  into  eleven  grades.  Eight  of  these  grades  con- 
tained only  one  city  each.42 

In  this  way  the  legislature  of  Ohio  practically  avoided 
the  constitutional  provision  of  1851  forbidding  special 
incorporation;  and  special  legislation  was  as  much  in 
evidence  on  the  statute  books  as  before  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution  of  1851.  Moreover,  this  policy  of  the 
legislature  was  made  possible  by  the  position  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  Ohio  which  by  a  line  of  decisions  covering 
a  period  of  fifty  years  sustained  such  special  legislation 
for  municipalities.  In  1902,  however,  the  Supreme  Court 
disregarded  the  well  established  precedents  and  reversed 
its  earlier  decisions,  thereby  forcing  the  legislature  to 
enact  a  new  municipal  code.43 

But  Ohio  has  not  been  the  only  offender  along  this  line. 
In  fact  classification  of  municipalities  has  become  the 
rule  in  all  States  where  special  incorporation  is  forbid- 
den, and  special  legislation  is  permitted  to  flourish  in 
these  States  the  same  as  under  the  old  system  of  special 
incorporation.  In  California  the  courts  sustained  a 
classification  of  forty-eight  counties  of  the  State  into 
forty-five  grades.44  Nor  has  Iowa  been  free  from  this 
kind  of  constitutional  evasion:  the  session  laws  of  this 
State  are  full  of  illustrations  of  special  legislation.  The 
legislature,  however,  has  not  gone  to  the  absurd  length  of 
the  Ohio  enactments.  At  the  same  time  it  is  true  that  the 


28  APPLIED  HISTORY 

General  Assembly  of  Iowa  has  frequently  passed  acts 
which  though  couched  in  general  terms  really  applied  to 
only  one  or  two  cities. 

In  1902  the  Iowa  legislature  passed  an  act  for  the 
creation  and  establishment  of  a  board  of  police  and  fire 
commissioners  in  cities  of  the  first  class,  having  a  popula- 
tion of  more  than  60,000.45  Des  Moines  was  the  only  city 
in  Iowa  with  a  population  of  more  than  60,000.  In  1907 
cities  having  a  population  of  at  least  50,000  were  author- 
ized to  erect  a  city  hall.46  Again  in  this  case  Des  Moines 
was  the  only  city  having  a  population  of  at  least  50,000. 
Scores  of  other  illustrations  could  be  cited  from  the 
statutes  of  Iowa  showing  this  kind  of  special  legislation. 
Thus  it  is  clear  that  general  incorporation  has  not  done 
away  with  special  legislation.  (For  further  considera- 
tion of  this  point,  see  below  pp.  40,  41.) 

The  municipal  law  of  Ohio  prior  to  1902  not  only 
shows  how  constitutional  provisions  prohibiting  special 
laws  may  be  avoided  but  it  also  shows  how  futile  is  such 
an  arrangement  from  the  standpoint  of  municipal  gov- 
ernment. Moreover,  a  rigid  classification  of  cities,  such 
as  existed  in  Ohio  from  1902  to  the  constitutional  revision 
in  1912,  also  shows  how  impossible  it  is  to  meet  the  needs 
of  a  particular  locality  by  general  legislation.  By  the 
municipal  code  of  1902  seventy- two  cities  ranging  from 
five  thousand  to  over  a  half  million  people  were  governed 
by  the  same  regulations,  although  their  needs  must  from 
the  very  nature  of  things  have  been  vastly  different. 
Even  in  the  matter  of  organization  such  rigid  uniformity 
presents  grave  difficulties.  A  small  urban  community 
does  not  need  the  governmental  machinery  of  a  great 
metropolitan  center.  Nor  do  localities  having  the  same 
population  always  have  the  same  problems.  The  texture 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  29 

of  the  population  and  the  city's  geographic  location  may 
have  much  to  do  with  the  nature  and  character  of  local 
problems.47 

Taking  into  consideration,  then,  these  two  unavoidable 
tendencies  —  special  legislation  on  the  one  hand,  and  too 
general  regulation  on  the  other  —  something  of  the  prob- 
lem of  governing  local  areas  by  legislative  control  be- 
comes apparent.  Some  States  have  sought  a  solution  by 
a  constitutional  classification  of  cities.  Of  this  method 
New  York  presents  the  most  interesting  example. 

The  latest  Constitution  of  New  York  provided  for  a 
three-fold  classification  of  cities  according  to  population, 
and  the  legislature  was  given  power  to  pass  acts  applying 
to  all  the  cities  within  one  of  the  three  classes.  In  this 
there  was  nothing  uncommon.  The  novel  feature  is 
found  in  a  provision  under  which  the  legislature  was  em- 
powered to  pass  special  acts  applicable  only  to  one  city. 
But  all  such  acts  before  becoming  operative  must  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  mayor  of  the  city  affected.  If  approved  by 
him  they  go  to  the  Governor  for  his  signature;  if  not 
approved  by  the  mayor  they  must  be  repassed  by  the 
legislature  before  going  to  the  executive.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  observe  that  the  New  York  plan  has  not 
proved  very  successful  in  prohibiting  undesirable  legis- 
lation.48 

In  Illinois  a  constitutional  amendment  has  made  it 
impossible  for  the  legislature  to  pass  a  law  relative  to 
Chicago  without  a  referendum  to  the  voters  of  that  city. 
Although  this  arrangement  has  not  made  it  possible  for 
Chicago  to  obtain  everything  which  the  city  has  wanted, 
it  has  kept  the  legislature  from  saddling  on  the  city  meas- 
ures which  the  people  do  not  want.  Michigan  has  gone 
still  further  and  provided  for  local  referenda  on  all  spe- 
cial legislation  for  cities.49 


30  APPLIED  HISTORY 

These  innovations  in  the  field  of  local  regulations  are 
not  only  interesting  as  the  latest  steps  in  the  development 
of  local  government,  but  they  are  also  indicative  of  the 
failure  of  general  incorporation  as  a  system  of  local  con- 
trol just  as  general  incorporation  acts  have  pointed  clear- 
ly to  the  failure  of  special  incorporation.  And  yet  it  can 
not  be  said  that  special  and  general  incorporation  have 
failed  because  of  any  inherently  defective  principle  in 
those  schemes  of  local  government :  on  the  contrary,  the 
failure  bf  the  political  corporation  as  an  agency  of  local 
self-government  in  America  is  due  primarily  to  the  char- 
acter and  position  which  has  been  assigned  to  these  cor- 
porations by  the  principles  of  American  law. 


Ill 

LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  AREAS  IN  IOWA 

EXPEKIENCE  in  the  actual  workings  of  government  in  the 
United  States  has  shown  that  while  certain  functions  be- 
long to  the  Nation  as  a  whole,  others  are  best  discharged 
by  large  divisions  called  States,  and  still  others  are  more 
satisfactorily  performed  by  subdivisions  known  as  local 
areas.  It  is  in  recognition  of  this  fact  that  there  are 
maintained  in  the  United  States  three  distinct  grades  of 
government  —  Federal,  State,  and  local.  With  the  prob- 
lems of  the  Federal  government  this  discussion  is  not 
directly  concerned;  but  to  understand  the  present  posi- 
tion of  local  government  areas  in  Iowa  it  is  necessary  to 
have  at  least  a  general  grasp  of  the  Iowa  system  of  State 
government  —  more  especially  the  Iowa  system  of  State 
administration. 

THE  IOWA  ADMINISTRATIVE  SYSTEM 

There  is  not  much  in  the  administrative  system  of 
Iowa  that  marks  it  as  essentially  different  from  what  may 
be  found  in  the  other  forty-seven  States  of  the  Union. 
Prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  Code  of  1851  the  institutions 
of  this  State  were  not  unlike  the  institutions  of  the  other 
pioneer  States  of  the  Middle  West  —  nor,  for  that  matter, 
did  they  differ  widely  from  the  early  institutions  of  the 
original  thirteen  States.  It  is  true  that  in  the  early  days 
in  Iowa  the  people  did  occasionally  devise  governmental 
machinery  of  their  own  —  extra  legal  devices  like  the 

31 


32  APPLIED  HISTORY 

claim  associations,  the  mining  associations,  and  anti- 
horse-stealing  associations.50  And  during  the  period  of 
statehood  such  unique  features  as  the  county  judge  sys- 
tem of  1851  and  the  Board  of  Education  of  1857  have 
appeared.51  But  for  the  most  part  common  political  in- 
heritances have  afforded  sufficient  models  for  the  people 
of  this  State. 

The  general  outline  of  the  present  administrative  sys- 
tem came  into  being  during  the  Territorial  period.  In  the 
original  scheme  of  Territorial  government,  which  was 
patterned  after  that  of  the  Old  Northwest,52  the  Governor 
was  given  an  absolute  veto  on  legislation  and  a  very  large 
appointive  power  which  extended  to  some  local  officers 
such  as  sheriff  and  justice  of  the  peace.  In  the  second 
year  of  the  Territory,  however,  his  powers  were  greatly 
curtailed  by  amendments  to  the  Organic  Law.  At  the 
present  time  the  powers  of  the  Governor  of  Iowa  are 
political  rather  than  administrative.  In  his  messages  he 
proposes  legislation,  and  upon  all  acts  of  the  General 
Assembly  he  has  a  limited  veto.  These  powers,  together 
with  the  influence  which  he  has  upon  legislation  through 
his  party  leadership,  sometimes  combine  to  make  him  the 
dominant  factor  in  the  enactment  of  popular  measures. 
Like  the  chief  executive  in  other  States,  the  Governor  of 
Iowa  has  large  military  and  pardoning  powers.  The  Con- 
stitution of  Iowa,  however,  unlike  the  constitutions  of 
some  States,  gives  the  Governor  practically  no  appointive 
power  and  absolutely  no  removing  power.  Hence,  from 
the  political  point  of  view,  the  theoretical  and  actual  pow- 
ers of  the  Governor  of  this  State  are  very  important,  but 
from  the  administrative  point  of  view  his  powers  are 
really  nominal.53 

The  Governor's  administrative  power  consists  for  the 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  33 

/ 

most  part  of  functions  which  he  may  perform  in  connec- 
tion with  his  membership  on  the  Executive  Council  and  on 
various  other  State  boards  and  commissions.54  In  these 
positions  his  theoretical  power  is  not  greater  than  that  of 
other  members  of  the  same  bodies,  although  he  may  on 
occasion  exercise  through  these  agencies  a  strong  ad- 
visory influence  upon  the  administration  of  the  State. 
Furthermore,  the  General  Assembly  has  conferred  upon 
the  Governor  some  administrative  control  by  vesting  in 
him  the  power  to  appoint  a  large  number  of  minor  State 
officers  and  members  of  various  boards,  commissions,  and 
bureaus.55  But  this  appointive  power  is  more  nominal 
than  real  so  far  as  effective  administrative  control  is  con- 
cerned, since  the  officers  appointed  by  him  are  usually  not 
subject  to  his  authority  and  supervision.  Indeed,  the  ap- 
pointment by  the  Governor  of  a  large  number  of  minor 
officers  is  a  method  of  filling  offices  rather  than  a  means 
of  controlling  administrative  action.  Finally,  the  Gov- 
ernor has  been  given  the  authority  to  suspend  State 
officials  for  the  improper  handling  of  State  funds.56  This 
power,  however,  is  little  more  than  a  paper  provision 
which  has  rarely  been  used.57 

It  is  only  necessary  to  recall  the  fact  that  the  chief 
branches  of  administration  in  Iowa  are  vested  by  the 
Constitution  in  officers  who  are  absolutely  independent  of 
the  Governor  (these  officers  being  elected  by  the  people 
themselves)58  to  gain  some  conception  of  the  decentral- 
ized character  of  the  administrative  system.  Indeed, 
about  the  only  responsibility  which  the  various  adminis- 
trative departments  and  agencies  have  in  relation  to  the 
chief  executive  is  to  make  a  biennial  report  to  him  in  re- 
gard to  the  administration  of  their  particular  offices ;  and 
this  is  for  the  information  of  the  State  rather  than  for 
any  kind  of  administrative  control. 

3 


34  APPLIED  HISTORY 

The  chief  constitutional  officers  in  the  State's  admin- 
istration, in  addition  to  the  Governor,  are  the  Secretary 
of  State,  the  Auditor  of  State,  the  Treasurer  of  State, 
and  the  Attorney  General.59  Nor  should  the  Superin- 
tendent of  Public  Instruction  be  neglected  in  this  con- 
nection, notwithstanding  the  fact  that  his  office  was 
created  by  the  legislature.  This  officer,  moreover,  was 
formerly  elective  but  has  recently  been  made  appointive 
by  the  Governor;  so  that  one  branch  of  the  administra- 
tion is  now  brought  under  the  appointive  power  of  the 
chief  executive.  No  provision  was  made,  however,  for  the 
removal  of  the  Superintendent  by  the  Governor.60 

In  addition  to  the  principal  executive  officers  already 
named  there  is  another  important  administrative  agency 
which  should  be  mentioned,  namely,  the  Executive  Coun- 
cil, which  is  composed  of  the  Governor,  Secretary  of 
State,  Auditor,  and  Treasurer.  The  duties  of  this  coun- 
cil, which  are  additional  to  the  regular  duties  of  the  four 
officers  who  compose  it,  include  a  large  amount  of  direct 
administrative  power  as  well  as  a  measure  of  supervising 
authority.61  In  fact  the  Executive  Council  has  had  many 
miscellaneous  duties  imposed  upon  it  by  the  legislature  — 
probably  because  of  convenience  and  the  absence  of  any 
other  appropriate  administrative  agency.  The  best  that 
can  be  said  for  such  a  policy  is  that  it  has  avoided  the 
creation  of  a  large  number  of  independent  officers, 
bureaus,  and  boards,  of  which  the  State  still  has  a  suf- 
ficiently large  number  —  approximately  thirty  minor  ad- 
ministrative officers,  and  one  hundred  fifty  members  of 
various  boards,  bureaus,  and  commissions.62 

The  nature  of  the  functions  discharged  by  the  Execu- 
tive Council  can  best  be  illustrated  by  listing  a  number  of 
its  more  important  duties.  It  is  entrusted  with  the  as- 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  35 

sessment  of  certain  corporations,  the  general  State  equal- 
ization of  taxes,  the  classification  of  municipalities 
according  to  law  after  each  census,  the  approval  of  the 
banks  in  which  the  State  funds  are  deposited,  the  can- 
vassing of  State  ele.ction  returns,  the  removal  of  certain 
State  administrative  officials  for  cause,  the  auditing  and 
approval  of  the  accounts  of  a  large  number  of  State  of- 
ficials and  employees,  the  superintendency  of  the  State 
census,  and  a  great  variety  of  other  minor  duties.63 

The  preceding  paragraphs  have  enumerated  the  chief 
administrative  agencies  of  the  State  government :  besides 
these  there  is  a  large  army  of  officers  in  the  local  areas 
who  are  in  reality  administrative  officers  of  the  State. 
Great  as  is  decentralization  in  State  administration,  one 
observes  still  greater  decentralization  in  the  local  admin- 
istration of  Iowa.  In  fact  the  influence  of  the  Governor 
in  local  administration  is  practically  negligible :  local  of- 
ficers are,  for  the  most  part,  not  only  independent  of  the 
Governor,  but  they  are  also  independent  of  any  other 
State  officer  —  a  situation  that  exists  in  the  face  of  the 
fact  that  the  State  depends  largely  upon  the  local  officers 
for  the  execution  of  State  laws.  And  this  is  the  boasted 
American  system  of  local  self-government  —  a  system, 
indeed,  of  local  self-administration.  To  be  sure  there  is 
at  the  present  time  a  tendency  to  break  away  from  this 
condition,  for  in  1909  the  Attorney  General  was  given 
supervisory  power  over  the  county  attorneys  and  in  1913 
a  uniform  system  of  accounting  for  counties  was  estab- 
lished, to  be  prescribed  by  the  Auditor  of  State  and  en- 
forced by  inspectors  from  his  office.64  These  pieces  of 
legislation  merely  show  tendencies  toward  centralization : 
decentralization  in  administrative  organization  is  still  the 
rule  not  only  in  Iowa  but  throughout  the  United  States. 


36  APPLIED  HISTORY 

The  love  of  the  American  people  for  decentralization  in 
government  and  administration  is  well  expressed  by  Mr. 
Thomas  M.  Cooley  in  his  work  on  Constitutional  Limita- 
tions when  he  says : 

In  contradistinction  to  those  governments  where  powers  are 
concentrated  in  one  man,  or  in  one  or  more  bodies  of  men,  whose 
supervision  and  active  control  extends  to  all  objects  of  govern- 
ment within  the  territorial  limits  of  the  state,  the  American 
system  is  one  of  complete  decentralization,  the  primary  and  vital 
idea  of  which  is,  that  local  affairs  shall  be  managed  by  local 
authorities,  and  general  affairs  only  by  the  central  authority.65 

The  government  of  Iowa,  however,  is  decentralized 
only  in  its  administrative  machinery:  in  its  legislative 
organization  it  presents  a  system  of  complete  centraliza- 
tion.66 American  law  recognizes  no  inherent  rights  of 
government  in  any  of  the  political  subdivisions  of  the 
State,  and  the  Constitution  of  this  State  has  conferred 
few  powers  upon  local  corporations.  Moreover,  the  legis- 
lature of  Iowa  has  not  been  generous  in  granting  powers 
of  local  government  to  the  various  local  areas.  Thus  in 
legislation  Iowa  must  be  characterized  as  highly  central- 
ized both  in  theory  and  in  practice.  The  actual  position 
of  the  local  areas  of  the  State  can  best  be  approached  by 
a  discussion  of  the  relation  of  the  legislature  to  the  local 
areas. 

THE  LEGISLATUEE  AND  LOCAL  GOVEENMENT  AEEAS 

In  order  to  understand  the  relation  of  the  legislature 
to  the  various  local  government  areas  in  Iowa  it  is  neces- 
sary to  define  clearly  the  character  of  these  areas  as 
political  corporations:  indeed,  an  understanding  of  the 
political  corporation  as  an  agency  of  local  self-govern- 
ment is  essential  to  a  discussion  of  the  problems  of  home 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  37 

rule  in  Iowa.  As  has  already  been  pointed  out  there  are 
four  political  corporations  in  this  State,  namely,  the 
county,  the  township,  the  school  district,  and  the  city  or 
town. 

A  corporation  is  defined  as  "a  legal  institution,  de- 
vised to  confer  upon  the  individuals  of  which  it  is  com- 
posed powers,  privileges,  and  immunities  which  they 
would  not  otherwise  possess,  the  most  important  of  which 
are  continuous  legal  identity  or  unity,  and  perpetual  or 
indefinite  succession  under  the  corporate  name,  notwith- 
standing successive  changes,  by  death  or  otherwise,  in 
the  corporators  or  members."67  But  a  political  corpora- 
tion is  something  more  than  this  since  it  includes  the  idea 
of  territory,  of  jurisdictional  limitations.  And  yet,  like 
other  corporations,  political  corporations  are  created  by 
law  and  possess  no  authority  not  expressly  or  impliedly 
conferred  upon  them  by  the  State.  Moreover,  the  per- 
sons l  '  residing  in  or  inhabiting  a  place  to  be  incorporated, 
as  well  as  the  place  itself,  are  —  both  the  persons  and  the 
place  —  indispensable  to  the  constitution "  of  a  political 
corporation.68 

For  the  purposes  of  the  present  discussion  a  two-fold 
classification  of  political  corporations  into  quasi-corpora- 
tions  and  municipal  corporations  is  most  convenient. 
Moreover,  these  two  kinds  of  political  corporations  can 
easily  be  distinguished.  In  the  first  place,  municipal  cor- 
porations are  voluntary,  the  incorporation  being  asked 
for  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory  to  be  incorporated, 
or  at  least  assented  to  by  them;  whereas  quasi-corpora- 
tions  are  involuntary,  being  superimposed  upon  the  in- 
habitants of  the  incorporated  area.  Again,  municipal 
corporations  are  established  more  for  the  purpose  of 
local  government  than  as  administrative  agents  of  the 


38  APPLIED  HISTORY 

State;  while  quasi-corporations  exist  more  for  State  ad- 
ministrative purposes  than  for  carrying  on  local  func- 
tions. Finally,  municipal  corporations  possess  all  the 
powers  of  a  corporation;  but  quasi-corporations  enjoy 
only  a  limited  number  of  such  powers.  In  Iowa  the  coun- 
ty, the  township,  and  the  school  district  are  quasi-cor- 
porations, while  the  city  and  the  town  are  municipal 
corporations:  and  these  are  the  agencies  of  local  self- 
government  in  this  Commonwealth.69 

In  this  connection  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  a 
political  corporation  "is  a  representative  not  only  of  the 
State,  but  is  a  portion  of  its  governmental  power.  It  is 
one  of  its  creatures,  made  for  a  specific  purpose,  to  exer- 
cise within  a  limited  sphere  the  powers  of  the  State.  The 
State  may  ....  govern  the  local  territory  as  it 
governs  the  State  at  large.  It  may  enlarge  or  contract  its 
powers  or  destroy  its  existence. mo  Such  is  the  position 
which  has  been  assigned  to  local  government  areas  by 
American  law :  thus  the  unity  of  Commonwealth  govern- 
ment has  not  been  placed  upon  a  legal  basis. 

While  this  is  the  theoretical  position  of  the  local  gov- 
ernment areas  in  Iowa  and  in  other  States,  they  may  in 
fact  occupy  a  somewhat  different  place  in  the  scheme  of 
Commonwealth  government.  Indeed,  the  actual  position 
of  these  local  areas  depends  largely  upon  the  method 
which  the  State  has  adopted  in  controlling  them.  If  their 
control  is  placed  largely  in  the  hands  of  some  State 
agency,  they  will  of  necessity  become  dependent  upon  that 
agency;  but  if  the  State  seeks  to  control  them  by  giving 
them  a  definite  constitutional  status,  they  will  within  their 
own  sphere  of  activity  be  largely  independent  of  the  other 
governmental  agencies. 

Following  the  general  American  practice,  Iowa  has 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  39 

placed  the  control  of  local  areas  almost  wholly  in  the 
hands  of  the  State  legislature.  It  is  true  that  in  this 
State  the  local  government  areas  do  have  a  constitutional 
status,  but  it  is  difficult  to  determine  what  that  status 
really  is.  The  Constitution  of  1857  does  not  "create", 
" establish ",  or  " erect "  any  of  the  local  areas  of  Iowa; 
and  yet,  it  recognizes  these  areas  as  a  part  of  the  system 
of  government  —  the  county,  the  township,  the  school 
district,  and  the  municipality  being  specifically  mentioned 
in  several  places.  But  instead  of  conferring  any  specific 
powers  upon  these  political  corporations,  the  Constitution 
really  limits  their  powers.  For  instance,  political  cor- 
porations are  forbidden  to  become  stockholders  in  any 
banking  corporation;  they  are  also  prohibited  from  be- 
coming "indebted  in  any  manner,  or  for  any  purpose "  to 
exceed  five  percent  of  the  total  value  of  their  taxable 
property.71  These  and  other  provisions  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, although  limiting  the  sphere  of  local  competency,  go 
to  show  that  the  fundamental  law  of  this  State  was 
framed  with  the  existence  and  anticipated  continuance  of 
political  corporations  in  view. 

Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that  "back  of  all  constitutions 
are  certain  usages  and  maxims  that  have  sprung  from  the 
habits  of  life,  mode  of  thought,  method  of  trying  facts, 
and  mutual  responsibility  in  neighborhood  interests".72 
In  announcing  this  view  in  the  case  of  Iowa  vs.  Barker  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Iowa  said  that  all  "we  intend  to  an- 
nounce is  that  written  constitutions  should  be  construed 
with  reference  to  and  in  the  light  of  well-recognized  and 
fundamental  principles  lying  back  of  all  constitutions, 
and  constituting  the  very  warp  and  woof  of  these  fabrics. 
A  law  may  be  within  the  inhibition  of  the  constitution  as 
well  by  implication  as  by  expression."73  Thus  by  impli- 


40  APPLIED  HISTORY 

cation  political  corporations  do  have  a  constitutional 
status  in  this  State :  but  what  that  status  is  no  one  can 
tell,  since  the  Supreme  Court  has  gone  no  further  than  to 
suggest  in  certain  decisions  that  cities  and  towns  because 
of  their  constitutional  status  have  by  implication  the 
right  of  local  self-government,  and  that  this  right  can  not 
be  taken  away  from  them.74 

It  is  apparent  from  these  cases  that  the  control  of 
local  areas  in  Iowa  has  not  been  attempted  by  assigning 
to  them  a  definite  constitutional  status ;  and  so  the  ]egis- 
lature  in  this  State  has  enjoyed  an  almost  unlimited 
power  in  defining  the  character  and  government  of  these 
areas.  But  the  legislature  itself  is  not  wholly  without 
limitations.  It  has  already  been  noted  that  the  Constitu- 
tion prohibits  special  legislation  and  the  creation  of  polit- 
ical corporations  by  special  acts.  Such  are  the  expressed 
constitutional  limitations  —  which  do  not  limit  the  power 
of  the  legislature,  but  rather  the  manner  of  using  that 
power.  Here,  again,  the  Supreme  Court  has  said:  "We 
are  also  of  opinion  that  there  are  other  well-defined  limits 
on  the  power  of  the  legislature  in  dealing  with  such 
bodies.  "75  That  the  limitations  referred  to  are  implied 
limitations  is  shown  by  the  following  language  of  the 
court : 

But  the  legislative  control  of  municipal  corporations  is  not 
without  limitations.  This  immunity  from  unlimited  legislative 
control  has  been  expressly  recognized  by  the  supreme  court  of  the 
United  States  in  City  of  New  Orleans  v.  New  Orleans  Water- 
works Co.,  .  .  .  where  it  is  said  "that  the  municipality, 
being  a  mere  agent  of  the  state,  stands  in  its  governmental  or 
public  character  in  no  contract  relation  with  its  sovereign,  at 
whose  pleasure  its  charter  may  be  amended,  changed,  or  re- 
voked without  the  impairment  of  any  constitutional  obligation, 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  41 

while  with  respect  to  its  private  or  proprietary  rights  and  inter- 
ests it  may  be  entitled  to  the  constitutional  protection."76 

In  the  case  of  the  State  vs.  City  of  Des  Moines  the 
Supreme  Court  came  to  the  conclusion  that  there  was  an 
implied  limitation  upon  the  power  of  the  legislature  to 
delegate  the  power  of  taxation.77  And  there  are  other 
cases  which  also  recognize  certain  implied  limitations 
upon  the  legislative  control  of  political  corporations  in 
this  State.78  But  these  constitutional  limitations  (both 
the  implied  and  the  expressed)  have  never  had  any  very 
telling  effect  upon  the  policy  of  the  General  Assembly  in 
regard  to  the  control  of  political  corporations.  Indeed, 
the  legislature  has  usually  considered  the  local  areas  as 
mere  agents  of  the  State,  giving  them  a  position  of  com- 
plete dependence.  In  short  it  appears  that  under  "our 
form  of  government  the  legislature  creates  municipal 
corporations,  defines  and  limits  their  powers,  enlarges  or 
diminishes  them  at  will,  points  out  the  agencies  which  are 
to  execute  them,  and  possesses  such  general  supervision 
over  them  as  it  shall  deem  proper  and  needful  for  the 
public  welfare."79 

Moreover,  the  General  Assembly  has  for  the  most  part 
failed  to  recognize  the  dual  character  of  local  political 
corporations  —  the  fact  that  they  exist  both  as  adminis- 
trative districts  of  the  State  and  as  areas  for  the  satis- 
faction of  local  needs.  Indeed,  there  has  been  a  great 
deal  of  confusion  on  this  point  both  within  and  without 
the  legislature,  due  largely  to  the  failure  to  draw  a  def- 
inite distinction  between  the  State  administrative  func- 
tions of  the  local  areas  and  their  internal  and  local 
functions.  The  present  situation  is  the  result  of  a  grad- 
ual growth,  a  product  of  political  evolution :  it  is  not  the 
fruit  of  a  definite  plan  of  development,  the  completion  of 
some  prearranged  program. 


42  APPLIED  HISTORY 

There  has  been  much  academic  speculation  in  regard 
to  the  proper  position  of  local  areas  —  more  especially 
that  of  the  municipal  corporations.  Some  have  held  that 
the  city  ought  not  to  be  used  as  an  administrative  agent 
of  the  State :  they  would  have  independent  State  officials 
administer  State  laws  in  the  local  areas.  In  other  words, 
they  would  divorce  State  and  local  functions,  even  in  their 
execution  within  municipal  corporations.  This  of  course 
is  a  view  which  is  directly  opposed  to  the  policy  usually 
pursued  by  the  General  Assembly.  Moreover,  between 
the  two  extremes  one  finds  many  theories  of  different 
shades.  The  view  which  seems  to  have  gained  the  great- 
est foothold  outside  the  legislature  is  the  view  that 
municipal  corporations  ought  not  to  be  considered  as 
administrative  agents  of  the  State:  they  should  be  al- 
lowed to  determine  their  own  organization  and  policies. 
Since  the  determination  of  the  proper  position  of  the 
various  local  areas  in  this  State  lies  at  the  very  founda- 
tion of  any  discussion  of  home  rule,  the  writer  will  re- 
serve his  conclusions  on  this  point  for  a  subsequent 
section.80 

It  is  now  apparent  that  the  only  real  self-government 
within  a  political  corporation  in  Iowa  is  the  privilege 
which  the  people  of  that  area  have  of  choosing  their  own 
administrative  officers.81  Moreover,  owing  to  our  decen- 
tralized administrative  system,  this  phase  of  home  rule 
in  local  government  is  much  broader  in  its  scope  than  is 
at  first  apparent.  Local  officials  are  not  responsible  to 
higher  State  officials,  even  though  they  are  engaged  in  the 
administration  of  State  laws.  Since  they  are  largely  in- 
dependent in  the  administration  of  State  laws  they  inter- 
pret and  execute  State  laws  so  that  their  administration 
will  meet  the  approval  of  a  majority  of  the  voters  in  the 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  43 

local  area.  Thus,  it  transpires  that  local  self-government 
in  America  is  that  phase  of  home  rule  in  local  government 
which  is  more  aptly  described  as  local  self -administration. 
There  are,  to  be  sure,  some  differences  in  the  status  of 
the  various  political  areas  of  this  State  —  more  especially 
in  the  status  of  the  quasi  and  the  municipal  corporations 
-  which  are  not  here  discussed.  But  the  purpose  of  this 
section  has  been  to  show  the  exact  status  of  the  political 
corporation  in  Iowa  with  a  view  to  pointing  out  that  in 
this  State  political  corporations  as  a  whole  have  no  in- 
herent powers:  they  exist  only  in  contemplation  of  the 
law,  and  are,  therefore,  absolutely  under  the  control  of 
the  State  legislature,  except  where  the  powers  of  the 
legislature  have  been  limited  by  the  Constitution,  either 
expressly  or  impliedly. 


IV 
THE  HOME  EULE  CHARTER  SYSTEM 

As  special  incorporation  in  time  proved  a  failure  and  was 
followed  by  a  system  of  general  incorporation,  so  general 
incorporation  in  turn  promises  to  be  followed  by  the  home 
rule  charter  system  —  the  latest  method  of  preventing 
legislative  interference  in  local  affairs.  Although  limited 
to  but  a  few  of  the  States,  the  home  rule  charter  system  is 
of  the  greatest  importance  in  a  discussion  of  the  general 
principles  of  home  rule. 
» 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  HOME  EULE  CHARTER  SYSTEM 

The  home  rule  charter  system  originated  in  Missouri 
with  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  1875.  By  the 
provisions  of  this  Constitution  the  city  of  St.  Louis  was 
given  certain  privileges  of  self-government  never  before 
possessed  by  any  American  municipality:  the  city  was 
vested  with  the  constitutional  authority  to  elect,  if  it  saw 
fit,  a  "  Board  of  Freeholders  ",  which  was  to  act  as  a  con- 
stitutional convention  for  the  city.  Such  a  board,  if 
chosen,  was  to  frame  for  the  city  a  charter  which,  without 
interference  from  the  legislature,  was  to  be  submitted  to 
the  people  for  their  approval  or  rejection.82 

The  creation  of  this  novel  scheme  of  charter-making 
was  the  work  of  the  constitutional  convention  which  met 
in  Jefferson  City,  Missouri,  on  May  5, 1875 ;  but  the  credit 
of  formulating  the  system  belongs  to  the  St.  Louis  dele- 
gates. The  government  of  St.  Louis,  like  that  of  most  of 

44 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  45 

the  great  American  cities,  had  been  notoriously  bad ;  and 
to  make  matters  worse  the  legislature  of  Missouri  had 
developed  a  well  organized  system  of  local  interference. 
As  a  result  of  these  conditions  there  was  a  general  de- 
mand from  the  city  delegates  at  the  constitutional  con- 
vention for  a  radical  change  in  the  plan  of  government 
for  St.  Louis.  The  first  step  toward  a  home  rule  charter 
system  took  place  when  a  resolution  was  introduced  by  a 
St.  Louis  delegate  providing  for  the  government  of  all 
cities  with  a  population  of  over  100,000  by  a  constitutional 
charter,  that  is,  a  charter  which  would  be  based  directly 
on  the  authority  of  the  Constitution  of  the  State.  The 
resolution  also  provided  that  amendments  to  the  charter 
could  be  made  only  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  council 
and  mayor  and  ratification  at  a  special  election  by  a  two-< 
thirds  vote  of  the  people.  It  was  promptly  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  St.  Louis  Affairs  which  was  made  up  of 
the  delegates  from  St.  Louis.83 

Another  proposition,  concerning  the  separation  of  the 
county  and  city  of  St.  Louis,  was  also  referred  to  this 
same  committee.  It  appears  that  prior  to  the  convening 
of  the  convention  of  1875  the  city  and  county  govern- 
ments of  St.  Louis  had  been  consolidated  —  an  arrange- 
ment that  led  to  a  great  deal  of  dissatisfaction  among  the 
taxpayers.  Thus  the  relation  of  city  and  county  natural- 
ly entered  into  the  problem  of  reorganizing  the  govern- 
ment of  St.  Louis.84 

In  due  time  the  Committee  on  St.  Louis  Affairs  de- 
vised a  scheme  in  accordance  with  which  the  city  of  St. 
Louis  was  to  elect  a  board  of  freeholders  —  consisting  of 
thirteen  citizens  —  who  were  to  propose  a  plan  for  sep- 
arating the  city  and  county  and  at  the  same  time  frame  a 
new  charter  for  the  government  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis.85 


46  APPLIED  HISTORY 

The  plan  of  separation  and  the  new  charter  were  both  to 
be  submitted  to  the  people  for  adoption  or  rejection. 

When  presented  to  the  convention  the  program  of  the 
Committee  on  St.  Louis  Affairs  met  with  considerable 
opposition  —  chiefly  from  delegates  representing  rural 
sections  who  declared  the  scheme  to  be  unwise  and 
vicious.  Indeed,  throughout  the  debate  there  was  evi- 
dence of  a  strong  feeling  that  St.  Louis  might  set  up  an 
independent  government  of  its  own.  As  a  result  of  this 
feeling  the  following  amendment  was  made  to  the  com- 
mittee 's  recommendations:  "Notwithstanding  the  pro- 
vision of  this  article,  the  General  Assembly  shall  have  the 
same  power  over  the  city  and  county  of  St.  Louis  that  it 
has  over  other  cities  and  counties  of  this  State.  "86  With 
•this  addition  the  plan  of  the  committee  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  fifty-three  to  four  in  the  convention,87  and  later  as 
a  part  of  the  proposed  Constitution  it  was  ratified  by  the 
people  of  the  State. 

Soon  after  the  Constitution  of  1875  went  into  effect, 
St.  Louis  took  advantage  of  its  provisions  and  elected  a 
board  of  freeholders,  who  soon  drafted  a  plan  for  divid- 
ing the  county  and  city  and  a  charter  of  government  for 
the  city.  The  election  on  the  plan  of  separation  and  the 
new  charter  took  place  on  August  22,  1876.  At  first  the 
returns  seemed  to  indicate  that  the  charter  had  been  rati- 
fied and  the  plan  of  separation  rejected.  But  when  the 
matter  was  taken  into  the  courts  and  the  returns  were 
corrected  by  judicial  proceedings  both  the  plan  of  di- 
vision and  the  charter  were  shown  to  have  been  ratified. 
Thus,  St.  Louis  was  the  first  city  in  the  United  States  to 
be  governed  by  a  charter  made  and  adopted  by  the  city 
itself.88 

Besides  the  special  provisions  applying  exclusively  to 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  47 

St.  Louis,  the  Constitution  of  1875  also  made  provision 
for  the  drafting  of  home  rule  charters  by  all  cities  having 
a  population  of  over  100,000.89  But  since  there  were  no 
cities  in  the  State  at  that  time,  except  St.  Louis,  with  a 
population  of  over  100,000,90  the  general  provisions  as 
well  as  the  special  provisions  relative  to  home  rule  char- 
ters were  applicable  only  to  St.  Louis.  The  minor  differ- 
ences in  the  provisions  set  out  specifically  for  St.  Louis 
and  those  which  were  applicable  to  all  cities  of  over 
100,000  persons  will  be  pointed  out  later  in  the  discus- 
sion.91 In  this  connection  it  is  only  necessary  to  add  that 
Kansas  City,  which  was  the  next  largest  city  in  Missouri, 
did  not  adopt  a  home  rule  charter  until  1889.92  In  the 
meantime  a  home  rule  charter  system  had  been  adopted 
in  California.93 

The  constitutional  convention  which  met  in  California 
in  1879  was  attracted  to  the  home  rule  charter  system, 
the  "Missouri  Idea"  having  been  reported  as  a  great 
success  in  the  case  of  St.  Louis.  It  appears  that  the 
attention  of  the  convention  was  first  called  to  this  novel 
scheme  by  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  City,  County, 
and  Township  Organization,  one  of  the  articles  of  which 
was  very  similar  to  the  Missouri  general  provision  allow- 
ing cities  of  over  100,000  to  frame  their  own  charters.  A 
freeholders  board  of  fifteen  instead  of  thirteen  members 
was  provided  as  the  charter-drafting  body.  The  chair- 
man of  the  committee  had  originally  been  in  favor  of 
extending  the  privilege  to  all  the  cities  of  California,  but 
the  committee  compromised  on  the  100,000  population 
limit.  As  in  the  Missouri  convention  so  also  in  the  Cali- 
fornia convention  the  proposed  new  method  of  governing 
cities  at  first  met  with  considerable  opposition.  But  the 
delegates  from  San  Francisco,  which  was  the  only  city  in 


48  APPLIED  HISTORY 

the  State  with  a  population  of  over  100,000,  were  for  the 
most  part  in  favor  of  the  new  plan,  for  in  its  novel  fea- 
tures they  saw  an  opportunity  to  reform  the  corrupt 
government  of  the  Golden  Gate  city  by  getting  rid  of 
legislative  interference.94 

In  the  debate  on  the  floor  of  the  convention  the  San 
Francisco  delegates  constantly  referred  to  the  St.  Louis 
experiment  and  the  success  which  had  followed  the  adop- 
tion of  the  plan  in  Missouri.  The  opposition,  moreover, 
raised  practically  the  same  point  that  had  been  made 
against  the  plan  when  it  was  proposed  in  Missouri :  they 
maintained  that  it  was  an  attempt  to  create  an  independ- 
ent State  out  of  the  city  of  San  Francisco.  And  so 
strongly  did  they  press  their  arguments  that  the  San 
Francisco  delegates  finally  agreed  to  an  amendment  by 
which  all  charters  after  being  ratified  by  the  people  were 
to  be  submitted  to  the  State  legislature  for  its  approval. 
Herein  the  California  scheme  differed  from  the  Missouri 
plan.  By  this  provision  it  is  clear  that  the  State  legisla- 
ture still  retained  the  same  control  over  cities  of  100,000 
as  it  did  over  other  cities  of  the  State.95 

Soon  after  the  new  Constitution  of  California  went 
into  operation  in  1880,  the  friends  of  the  home  rule  char- 
ter system  started  a  movement  for  the  election  of  a  board 
of  freeholders  in  San  Francisco.  But  the  first  home-made 
charter  was  rejected  by  the  people  on  September  8, 1880 ; 
a  second  charter  was  rejected  on  March  3,  1883;  and  a 
third  charter  was  likewise  rejected  on  April  12,  1887.96 
Indeed,  two  other  attempts  were  necessary  before  San 
Francisco  came  under  a  charter  emanating  from  the  peo- 
ple. Finally,  in  1898,  just  eighteen  years  after  the  power 
to  draft  a  charter  had  been  conferred,  the  city  adopted  a 
home  rule  charter97 — which  at  that  time  was  declared  to 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  49 

be  the  most  radical  charter  of  any  great  city  in  the  United 
States.98 

The  next  State  to  adopt  a  home  rule  charter  system 
was  Washington,  where  the  convention  drew  largely  from 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  California.  At  the 
same  time  the  St.  Louis  experiment  was  also  known  to 
the  Washington  convention,  and  it  is  apparent  that  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  Missouri  had  some  in- 
fluence upon  the  wording  of  the  Washington  plan.  Al- 
though there  was  not  as  much  opposition  to  the  new 
program  of  city  government  in  the  Washington  conven- 
tion as  appeared  in  the  Missouri  and  California  con- 
ventions, nevertheless  there  was  considerable  difference 
of  opinion  as  to  the  size  of  the  cities  to  which  the  privilege 
should  be  extended.  The  convention  finally  compromised 
on  all  cities  of  at  least  20,000  population.  At  the  time 
there  were  but  two  cities  in  the  State  with  a  population  of 
over  20,000  —  Seattle  and  Tacoma.  Seattle  ratified  a 
home  rule  charter  on  October  1,  1890;  and  Tacoma  fol- 
lowed by  ratifying  a  charter  on  October  17,  1890." 

In  the  provisions  of  the  Constitutions  of  the  States  of 
Missouri,  California,  and  Washington  are  to  be  found  the 
beginnings  and  the  nucleus  of  the  home  rule  charter  sys- 
tem which  has  been  slowly  developing  in  the  United 
States  for  the  last  forty  years.  After  the  adoption  of  the 
Washington  Constitution  in  1889  there  followed  a  period 
of  several  years  during  which  the  movement  did  not  seem 
to  gain  much  headway ;  but  since  that  date  there  has  been 
a  gradual  and  steady  growth  of  the  system. 

EXTENSION  OF  THE  HOME  RULE  CHARTER  SYSTEM 

Six  years  after  its  adoption  in  Washington  and  eleven 
years  after  its  inauguration  in  Missouri  the  home  rule 


50  APPLIED  HISTORY 

charter  system  was  accepted  by  the  people  of  Minnesota 
through  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  in  1896.  Here 
again  the  "Missouri  Idea"  was  copied  with  certain 
changes,  the  most  important  of  which  concerns  the  meth- 
od of  selecting  the  board  of  freeholders.  According  to 
the  Minnesota  plan  the  members  of  the  charter-making 
board  are  appointed  by  the  judge  of  the  district  court 
instead  of  being  elected  by  the  people.  The  Minnesota 
plan  is  also  much  broader  in  its  application,  being  within 
the  option  of  any  city  or  village  in  the  State.  Within 
three  or  four  years  after  the  introduction  of  the  system  in 
Minnesota  it  was  put  into  operation  by  St.  Paul  and 
Duluth,  as  well  as  by  a  number  of  smaller  places.100 

The  fifth  State  to  adopt  the  home  rule  charter  system 
was  Colorado,  where  the  scheme  as  set  forth  in  the  con- 
stitutional amendment  of  1902  is  of  particular  interest 
because  of  its  similarity  to  the  original  home  rule  system, 
the  "Missouri  Idea".  As  the  original  plan  for  home  rule 
charters  in  Missouri  applied  only  to  the  county  and  city 
of  St.  Louis,  so  the  original  scheme  in  Colorado  applied 
only  to  the  county  and  city  of  Denver ;  and  as  in  Missouri 
so  also  in  Colorado  there  was  a  supplementary  provision 
extending  the  privilege  to  other  cities  of  the  State.  An- 
other point  of  interest  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  "Missouri 
Idea"  separated  the  county  and  city  of  St.  Louis,  while 
the  Colorado  scheme  consolidated  the  county  and  city  of 
Denver.101 

The  constitutional  amendment  adopted  in  Colorado  in 
1902,  really  extended  the  privilege  of  home  rule  charter- 
making  to  all  cities  with  a  population  of  at  least  2000. 
Instead  of  a  board  of  freeholders,  however,  the  charter- 
framing  body  was  called  a  "charter  convention",  and  it 
was  to  be  composed  of  twenty-one  taxpayers.  Moreover, 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  51 

the  Colorado  system  was  practically  obligatory  and  was 
the  most  radical  system  that  had  been  adopted  up  to  that 
time.  Denver,  it  may  be  added,  adopted  a  home  rule 
charter  in  1904  after  rejecting  a  similar  instrument  in 
1903.102 

In  1901  Oregon  started  an  experiment  with  the  home 
rule  charter  system  when  the  legislature  appointed  for 
Portland  a  commission  to  draft  a  new  charter  to  be  first 
ratified  by  the  people  and  then  endorsed  by  the  legisla- 
ture. The  commission  accomplished  its  work  with  expe- 
dition and  submitted  a  charter,  which  by  popular 
approval  and  legislative  endorsement  became  the  organic 
law  of  the  city.  Later,  in  1906,  a  constitutional  amend- 
ment was  adopted  authorizing  the  legislature  of  Oregon 
to  provide  for  a  system  of  home  rule  charters  for  all  of 
the  cities  of  the  State ;  and  under  its  provisions  the  legis- 
lature took  action  in  1907.103 

The  home  rule  charter  system  had  made  its  way. 
Oklahoma  came  into  the  Union  in  1907  with  a  home  rule 
charter  provision  in  its  Constitution,  according  to  which 
every  city  with  2000  inhabitants  or  over  was  given  the 
privilege  of  framing  its  own  charter  by  means  of  a  free- 
holders board.104  Michigan  by  the  revised  Constitution 
of  1908  and  by  a  statute  in  1909  has  conferred  upon  all  of 
its  cities  the  power  to  adopt  home  rule  charters.105  In 
1911  by  an  act  of  the  legislature  Wisconsin  became  the 
eighth  State  in  the  Union  to  provide  for  a  home  rule 
charter  system.  But  as  there  was  some  doubt  as  to  the 
constitutionality  of  the  act,  the  legislature  also  proposed 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  which  was  repassed  in 
1913  and  will  be  submitted  to  the  people  in  November, 
1914. 106  Texas  in  1911  established  by  a  constitutional 
amendment  a  home  rule  charter  system  for  all  cities  with 


52  APPLIED  HISTORY 

a  population  of  5000  or  over.107  Arizona  followed  Texas 
in  1912  by  extending  the  privilege  to  all  cities  with  more 
than  3500  inhabitants.108  Through  the  constitutional  re- 
vision of  1912  all  the  cities  of  the  State  of  Ohio  were 
given  the  privilege  of  framing  their  own  charters ; 109  and 
in  the  same  year  a  constitutional  amendment  ratified  by 
the  people  of  Nebraska  gave  the  same  power  to  all  cities 
with  a  population  of  5000  or  more.110 


GROWTH  OF  HOME  RULE  CHARTERS 

FKOM  the  viewpoint  of  local  government  in  the  United 
States  the  present  is  indeed  an  era  of  home  rule  charter- 
making  ;  for  as  remarkable  as  its  principles  is  the  spread 
of  the  system  which  has  really  been  phenomenal  in  the 
United  States.  At  the  present  time  thirteen  of  the  thirty 
largest  cities  of  the  United  States  are  governed  by  home 
rule  charters.  These  include  the  fourth,  the  sixth,  the 
ninth,  and  the  eleventh  largest  cities  of  the  country. 
Over  fifty  of  the  home  rule  charter  cities  have  adopted  the 
commission  form  of  government,  and  over  ten  have  estab- 
lished the  city-manager  plan.  Furthermore,  nearly  all  of 
the  modern  municipal  reforms  appear  as  features  in  the 
various  municipal-made  charters.  |  To  trace  the  growth 
and  development  of  this  system  in  the  several  States  is 
the  purpose  of  this  chapter. 

HOME  EULE  CHAETEES  IN  MISSOUEI 

Owing  to  the  100,000  population  requirement  St.  Louis 
was  for  a  long  time  the  only  city  in  the  State  of  Missouri 
entitled  under  the  Constitution  to  frame  its  own  char- 
ter.111 Kansas  City  did  not  acquire  a  population  of 
100,000  until  1887;  while  St.  Joseph  reached  the  100,000 
mark  much  later.112  In  1889  Kansas  City  adopted  a  home 
rule  charter  which  seems  to  have  been  patterned  after  the 
old  legislative  charter  of  St.  Joseph.  With  several 
amendments  the  charter  of  1889  remained  in  force  until 

53 


54  APPLIED  HISTORY 

1908  when  a  more  modern  instrument  was  accepted  by  the 
people.  Moreover  the  struggle  for  this  new  charter  with 
modern  features  presents  an  interesting  phase  of  city 
politics  which  can  not  be  discussed  in  this  connection  for 
want  of  space.113  St.  Joseph,  the  only  other  city  in  the 
State  which  has  thus  far  reached  the  100,000  mark,  has 
had  a  great  shrinkage  in  population  since  1900,114  and  as 
a  result  it  is  no  longer  entitled  to  draft  a  home  rule  char- 
ter. Thus,  all  of  the  cities  of  Missouri  which  at  the  pres- 
ent time  have  the  authority  to  make  their  own  charters  — 
namely,  St.  Louis  and  Kansas  City  —  are  now  operating 
under  home-made  charters. 

St.  Louis  continued  to  operate  under  its  original  home 
rule  charter  until  August,  1914,  although  several  amend- 
ments had  been  made  to  this  instrument  which,  it  will  be 
recalled,  was  ratified  in  1876.  The  last  amendment  to  the 
original  charter  was  adopted  in  1912.  In  the  meantime 
the  people  voted  down  a  proposed  charter  in  1911.  But 
on  June  30,  1914,  the  voters  of  the  city  adopted  a  new 
home  rule  charter  which  is  altogether  modern  in  that  it 
provides  for  the  initiative,  the  referendum,  the  recall,  the 
merit  system,  and  the  municipal  ownership  of  public  util- 
ities. Although  the  aldermanic  form  of  organization  is 
retained,  the  central  feature  of  the  new  charter  is  the 
short  ballot.115 

On  the  whole  ....  [this  new]  charter  seems  to  meas- 
ure up  in  matters  of  form,  to  high  standards  of  charter  making. 
There  is  comparatively  little  of  the  unnecessary  detail  of  admin- 
istrative procedure  which  impairs  the  value  of  many  such  docu- 
ments. At  the  same  time  the  charter  is  very  much  more  than  a 
mere  outline  of  the  city  government,  for  both  the  principal 
bureaus  of  the  departments  and  their  divisions  are  enumerated 
and  their  general  duties  defined.116 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  55 

It  is  now  evident  to  all  that  in  Missouri  municipal 
home  rule  has  not  resulted  in  creating  independent  States 
out  of  the  cities  of  St.  Louis  and  Kansas  City.  But  legis- 
lative friction,  which  has  continued  to  exist  even  under 
the  home-made  charters,  has  led  to  a  great  mass  of  ju- 
dicial construction.  It  appears  that  the  courts  have 
finally  concluded  that  the  legislature  is  still  supreme  in 
State  affairs  and  that  the  home  rule  cities  are  only  su- 
preme in  purely  local  affairs;  but  this  has  not  clarified 
the  atmosphere  very  much,  since  the  courts  are  still  en- 
gaged with  the  difficult  problem  of  determining  what  are 
State  affairs  and  what  are  municipal  affairs.117 

Finally,  it  may  be  observed  that  there  seems  to  be  a 
growing  demand  in  Missouri  for  the  extension  of  the 
home  rule  charter  system  to  the  smaller  cities  of  the 
State.  Leading  political  parties  have  frequently  declared 
in  favor  of  extending  the  application  of  the  system,  and 
Governor  Hadley  went  on  record  in  1911  by  saying  that 
"the  capacity  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves  demon- 
strates the  correctness  of  the  conclusion  that  the  state 
will  best  subserve  the  ends  of  good  government  by  con- 
ferring upon  the  people  of  the  large  cities  the  power  to 
govern  themselves,  with  such  restrictions  as  are  neces- 
sary to  safeguard  the  interests  of  the  state  as  a  whole.  "118 
As  yet,  however,  there  are  no  fruits  of  this  agitation  for 
the  smaller  cities. 

HOME  EULE  CHAETERS  IN  CALIFORNIA 

The  growth  of  real  home  rule  has,  perhaps,  been 
greater  in  California  than  in  any  other  State.  Even 
before  San  Francisco  had  succeeded  in  adopting  a  home 
rule  charter,  several  other  places  had  secured  this  form 
of  self-government.  Los  Angeles  adopted  a  charter  in 


56  APPLIED  HISTORY 

1889 ;  and  Oakland,  Stockton,  and  San  Diego  followed  in 
the  same  year.  Since  that  time  over  twenty-five  other 
cities  have  accepted  the  system.119  Up  to  January  1, 
1913,  two  counties  —  Los  Angeles  and  San  Bernardino  — 
had  likewise  adopted  the  plan,  thus  becoming  the  first 
home  rule  counties  in  the  United  States.  At  present  there 
is  on  foot  a  movement  to  adopt  a  charter  in  Alameda 
County.120  As  a  matter  of  fact  there  are  only  four  cities 
of  California  enabled  to  adopt  the  home  rule  system  that 
have  not  already  drafted  charters.  Moreover,  some  of 
these  cities  have  already  adopted  two  charters;  while 
there  has  been  much  amending  of  charters  in  all  of  the 
home  rule  cities.121 

The  large  growth  of  municipal-made  charters  in  Cali- 
fornia is  due  in  part  to  the  gradual  extension  of  the  appli- 
cation of  the  system:  in  1887  the  population  limit  was 
reduced  to  10,000,  and  in  1890,  to  3500  ;122  while  in  1911 
the  system  was  made  applicable  to  counties  of  the  State 
—  nearly  the  same  authority  being  vested  in  these  areas 
that  had  been  conferred  on  certain  cities  since  1879. 

In  extending  the  home  rule  principle  to  areas  other 
than  cities,  California  has  led  every  other  State  in  the 
Union.  Municipal  home  rule  and  local  self-government  in 
cities  are  not  unfamiliar  subjects ;  but  local  autonomy  for 
quasi-corporations  is  almost  an  unheard  of  thing.  But 
California,  in  its  ultra-progressiveness,  has  dared  to 
establish  a  home  rule  charter  system  for  counties.  At  the 
same  time,  nothing  appears  to  have  been  said  suggesting 
home  rule  for  the  other  quasi-corporations  —  the  town- 
ship and  the  school  district  —  although  the  conditions  in 
these  local  areas  may  not  be  unlike  those  in  the  counties 
of  the  State. 

But  the  wide  application  of  the  home  rule  charter 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  57 

system  in  California  is  not  entirely  responsible  for  the 
rapid  growth  of  home-made  charters  in  that  State.  The 
alertness  of  the  people  themselves  has  had  much  to  do 
with  securing  home  rule,  even  under  the  liberal  provisions 
of  the  State  Constitution.  Indeed,  in  1912  Mr.  Binkerd, 
Secretary  of  the  City  Club  of  New  York,  credited  the 
citizens  of  California  with  being  the  first  people  in  the 
United  States  to  really  understand  the  meaning  of  munic- 
ipal home  rule.123  Moreover,  an  examination  of  the  work 
of  a  number  of  the  freeholders  boards  and  citizens  clubs 
of  California  shows  that  the  citizens  of  that  State  have 
taken  an  unusual  interest  in  their  local  government.  This 
interest  of  the  people  not  only  accounts,  in  a  measure,  for 
the  rapid  growth  of  home  rule  charters  but  it  also  ex- 
plains, in  part,  the  success  with  which  they  have  inaugu- 
rated and  operated  the  home  rule  charter  system,  as  is 
shown  in  the  following  quotation  from  Professor  Thomas 
H.  Reed  of  the  University  of  California : 

It  is  thus  obvious  that  the  freeholder  charter  privilege  has 
been  largely  employed  by  California  cities.  That  it  has  been 
used  on  the  whole  wisely,  no  one  can  deny.  Our  cities  are  on  the 
average  well  governed  as  compared  with  the  country  at  large  and 
where  deficiencies  exist  they  are  due  not  so  much  to  the  frame  of 
government  as  to  political  conditions  which,  would  pervert  any 
charter  no  matter  how  excellent.  At  any  rate  the  people  are 
contented  in  the  knowledge  that  full  control  of  the  machinery  of 
government  is  in  their  hands.  Our  boards  of  freeholders  have 
not  been  bold  enough  to  "cast  off  their  moorings  from  the  hab- 
itable past."  Until  the  last  four  years  they  followed  pretty 
closely  in  the  beaten  track  of  municipal  development.  They  have 
not  revolutionized  municipal  government,  being  unable,  perhaps 
happily,  to  divorce  themselves  from  custom  and  tradition.  On 
the  whole,  however,  and  especially  of  recent  years,  they  have  used 
their  power  progressively.  The  San  Francisco  charter  of  1899 


58  APPLIED  HISTORY 

applied  imperfectly  the  principle  of  the  initiative  and  referen- 
dum. The  Fresno  charter  of  1901  provided  for  the  initiation  of 
ordinances  by  a  petition  of  15  per  cent  of  the  voters.  The  Los 
Angeles  charter  amendments  of  1903  introduced  the  " recall"  to 
American  municipal  affairs  and  the  language  of  that  charter  in 
providing  for  that  trilogy  of  progressivism,  the  initiative,  refer- 
endum and  recall,  has  been  copied  verbatim  into  great  numbers 
of  recent  charters.  The  commission  form  of  government  was 
taken  up  in  1909  by  Berkeley  and  San  Diego,  the  former  the  most 
advanced  features,  the  non-partisan  nomination  and  majority 
election,  of  the  Des  Moines  plan  were  copied  with  progressive 
modifications.  The  Berkeley  election  plan  permits  a  majority  on 
the  first  ballot  to  elect  without  further  contest.  At  the  regular 
session  of  1911  the  legislature  ratified  eight  charters  of  which  six, 
including  that  of  Oakland,  the  largest  city  in  the  country  to 
adopt  the  commission  plan  so  far,  provided  for  that  form  of 
government.  At  the  same  time  San  Francisco  secured  amend- 
ments which  give  her  practically  the  terms  of  the  Berkeley  char- 
ter as  to  the  initiative,  referendum  and  recall  and  non-partisan 
nominations  and  elections.  A  large  part  of  the  credit  for  the 
overthrow  of  the  corrupt  political  forces  of  San  Francisco  in  the 
fall  of  1911  is  ascribable  to  these  improvements  —  self-made  — 
in  its  charter.  At  the  special  session  of  1911  two  more  charters, 
both  of  the  commission  variety,  were  presented  to  the  legislature, 
from  Stockton  and  Sacramento.  The  latter  provides  for  the 
shortest  of  ballots,  one  only  of  the  five  commissioners  being 
chosen  each  year.  There,  too,  the  majority  non-partisan  election 
system  helped  to  down  a  few  weeks  ago,  one  of  the  worst  and 
ablest  rings  in  California.  I  think  it  is  safe  to  conclude  that 
while  cities  under  the  freeholder  system  do  not  adopt  certain  re- 
forms like  commission  government  so  speedily  as  if  the  legislature 
presented  them  ready  made  for  simple  adoption,  they  are  by  no 
means  backward  in  working  such  reforms  out  for  themselves.  A 
new  pattern  or  cut  in  ready-made  clothing  will  get  on  more  backs 
in  shorter  space  than  the  same  style  in  custom  garments.  It  is, 
however,  the  latter  which  fit  the  eccentricities  of  figure  and  pro- 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  59 

vide  the  full  and  scant  in  their  proper  locations.  We  have  en- 
joyed all  the  advantages  of  special  legislation  without  its  evils. 
We  have  charters  which  meet  each  peculiar  need  and  they  are  in 
the  main  as  progressive  as  we  might  hope  for.124 

And  yet  California  can  not  be  said  to  have  complete 
home  rule :  the  people  do  not  enjoy  a  full  measure  of  local 
self-government.  Under  the  constitutional  provision  that 
* i  cities  and  towns  heretofore  or  hereafter  organized,  and 
all  charters  thereof  framed  or  adopted  by  authority  of 
this  constitution,  shall  be  subject  to  and  controlled  by 
general  laws",125  the  State  legislature  has  prevented  the 
city  from  being  supreme  within  its  own  sphere  of  local 
government.  Special  legislation,  of  which  there  had  been 
an  abundance  before  the  establishment  of  the  home  rule 
charter  system,  has  not  entirely  disappeared.  Moreover, 
the  situation  has  been  made  worse  by  the  support  which 
the  Supreme  Court  has  given  to  the  legislature  in  its 
policy  of  interfering  in  the  affairs  of  home  rule  cities.126 
Finally,  in  1896  the  Constitution  was  amended  so  that 
charters  framed  and  adopted  under  the  Constitution  are 
subject  to  the  control  of  general  laws  "except  in  munic- 
ipal affairs".127  The  adoption  of  this  amendment  made 
the  home  rule  cities  of  California  the  most  independent 
cities  in  the  United  States,  so  far  as  the  legislature  is 
concerned.  And  yet,  they  can  not  be  said  to  have  com- 
plete home  rule  so  long  as  the  courts  determine  without 
limitation  what  constitute  municipal  affairs.128 

HOME  EULE  CHAETEES  IN  WASHINGTON 

The  narrow  application  of  the  home  rule  charter  sys- 
tem in  Washington  has  prevented  any  large  growth  of 
municipal-made  charters  in  that  State  where  in  fact  there 
are  only  five  cities  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  the  home 


60  APPLIED  HISTORY 

rule  system  —  namely,  Seattle,  Tacoma,  Spokane,  Bell- 
ingham,  and  Everett.129  Four  of  these  cities  have  al- 
ready taken  advantage  of  the  provisions  of  the  law  — 
Tacoma  and  Spokane  adopting  the  commission  form  of 
government.130 

The  experience  of  the  city  of  Spokane  shows  how  dif- 
ficult it  is  sometimes  to  put  into  operation  the  home  rule 
charter  machinery.  In  October,  1909,  the  mayor  of 
Spokane  appointed  a  committee  of  seventeen  citizens  to 
study  the  various  forms  of  commission  government  then 
existing  in  the  United  States.  After  five  months  of  study 
this  committee  drew  up  an  advisory  charter  providing 
for  commission  government  and  presented  it  to  the  may- 
or. The  mayor  in  turn  transmitted  the  report  to  the  city 
council  with  the  recommendation  that  a  special  election 
be  held  for  the  selection  of  a  board  of  freeholders  as 
provided  for  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State.  But  the 
city  council  refused  to  act.  Then  a  committee  of  citizens 
petitioned  the  council  to  call  a  special  election.  Again 
the  council  declined  to  act.  Finally,  a  petition  was  circu- 
lated and  presented  to  the  council  with  the  signatures  of 
5075  of  the  qualified  voters.  After  some  delay  the  council 
fixed  the  first  Tuesday  in  May  of  the  following  year  as 
the  election  day.  But  the  citizens  committee,  by  court 
proceedings  in  which  they  obtained  a  writ  of  mandamus, 
compelled  the  council  to  fix  September  27,  1910,  as  the 
day  for  choosing  a  board  of  freeholders.  On  the  day 
named  there  was  elected  a  board  of  fifteen  freeholders 
which  drafted  a  charter  providing  for  commission  gov- 
ernment and  presented  it  to  the  people.  This  instrument 
was  adopted  on  December  28, 1910,  thus  ending  the  strug- 
gle of  Spokane  for  a  home  rule  charter.131  The  Spokane 
experience  shows  how  a  movement  for  a  home  rule  char- 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  61 

ter  may  be  blocked  where  the  State  Constitution  places 
the  initiation  of  such  a  movement  in  the  hands  of  the  city 
council. 

The  proposed  new  charter  of  Seattle  which  was  de- 
feated at  a  special  election  held  on  June  30, 1914,  contains 
one  of  the  most  interesting  of  recent  features  in  munic- 
ipal government.  It  provides  for  a  city  manager  £nd  is 
unique  in  its  provisions  for  the  separation  of  municipal 
functions  —  the  business  functions  of  the  city  being  en- 
tirely divorced  from  the  humanitarian,  cultural,  and  gen- 
eral welfare  activities.  All  business  activities  are  placed 
in  the  hands  of  a  city  manager,  while  the  social  activities 
are  under  the  control  of  the  mayor  who  appoints  a  public 
welfare  commission  of  three  unsalaried  members.  The 
charter  also  provides  for  preferential  voting  and  abol- 
ishes the  primary  election  system.  It  is  estimated  that 
this  new  election  feature  would  save  the  city  between 
forty  and  fifty  thousand  dollars  annually  and  accomplish 
the  same  results  as  a  primary  election.  The  defeated 
Seattle  charter  suggests  the  possibilities  of  municipal 
reform  under  the  home  rule  charter  system.132 

Something  of  the  success  of  the  system  in  Washington 
would  seem  to  be  indicated  by  the  fact  that  all  of  the 
cities  of  the  State  entitled  to  operate  under  home-made 
charters  but  Bellingham  have  adopted  them.  The  plan 
in  all  of  these  cities  seems  to  have  given  satisfaction  as 
there  has  been  no  attempt  to  abandon  the  scheme.  More- 
over, the  passage  of  the  Allan  Commission  Government 
Act,  in  1911,  for  the  smaller  cities  of  the  State  has  greatly 
lessened  the  agitation  for  the  extension  of  the  system.133 

HOME  EULE  CHAETEES  IN  MINNESOTA 

More  favorable  even  than  in  California  have  been  the 
opportunities  for  the  growth  of  home-made  charters  in 


62  APPLIED  HISTORY 

Minnesota ;  for  here,  any  city  or  town  may  adopt  a  home 
rule  charter.  At  least  forty  municipalities,  ranging  from 
mere  villages  up  to  the  largest  cities  of  the  State,  have 
framed  their  own  governments  since  the  adoption  of  the 
constitutional  amendment  of  1896.  Among  the  larger 
cities  having  municipal-made  charters  are  the  cities  of 
St.  Paul  and  Duluth.134  Moreover,  an  amendment  to  the 
Constitution,  submitted  in  1912,  would  have  made  it  easier 
for  a  city  to  adopt  a  home  rule  charter,  had  the  citizens 
not  rejected  the  proposition  at  the  polls.135  The  legis- 
lature, however,  had  enlarged  the  system  prior  to  this 
time.  In  1909  they  made  it  possible  for  the  boards  of 
freeholders  to  draft  charters  providing  the  commission 
form  of  government;136  and  during  the  last  few  months 
several  Minnesota  cities  have  been  engaged  in  framing 
new  charters.  Freeholders  boards  have  been  at  work  in 
St.  Paul,  Minneapolis,  Anoka,  St.  Cloud,  and  Grlenwood.137 
It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  the  home  rule  char- 
ter system  has  been  as  successful  in  Minnesota  as  in 
California  —  that  is,  if  the  use  of  the  newer  methods  in 
municipal  government  is  a  test  of  success,  for  these  meth- 
ods are  not  found  in  the  charters  of  the  home  rule  cities 
of  Minnesota.  Indeed,  the  city-made  charters  of  Minne- 
sota do  not  appear  to  be  any  better  than  legislative-made 
charters.  About  all  the  home  rule  charter  system  has 
accomplished  in  Minnesota  is  a  change  in  the  process  of 
charter-making:  no  great  municipal  reforms  have  been 
accomplished  under  it.  The  charter  boards,  for  the  most 
part,  have  failed  to  break  away  from  the  traditions  of  the 
past ;  they  have  failed  to  draft  charters  conferring  upon 
the  cities  the  powers  and  rights  to  which  they  are  entitled 
under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  State.  The  thirty- 
six  charters  framed  under  the  home  rule  system  up  to 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  63 

1910  show  great  similarity  to  the  old  special  charters  of 
Minnesota:  like  the  special  charters  they  attempt  to 
enumerate  all  of  the  powers  of  the  city.  They  are  home- 
made but  not  home  rule  charters.  In  the  more  recent 
commission  charters  of  Mankato,  St.  Cloud,  and  Fari- 
bault  there  is,  however,  some  hope  of  home  rule;  and 
there  are  some  modern  features  in  the  new  charters  of 
St.  Paul  and  Duluth.  It  is  significant  that  in  September, 
1913,  Minneapolis  failed  to  adopt  a  charter  providing  for 
commission  government.138 

Again,  in  Minnesota  the  constitutional  limitations 
upon  special  legislation  have  not  worked  well  —  not  even 
in  conjunction  with  the  home  rule  charter  system.  The 
Constitution  establishes  a  four-fold  classification  of  the 
cities  of  the  State,  but  the  courts  have  allowed  a  sub- 
classification  of  a  peculiar  kind.  For  instance,  there  are 
home  rule  cities  and  special  charter  cities  in  each  of  the 
four  constitutional  classes,  and  in  the  fourth  class  there 
are  also  two  general  act  cities.  In  addition  to  these 
classes  there  is  a  large  group  of  small  communities,  rang- 
ing from  500  to  8000  inhabitants,  that  are  unclassified. 
As  a  result  of  this  situation  the  courts  have  upheld  all 
legislation  which  applies  to  all  the  cities  in  a  particular 
class  —  except  of  course  home  rule  cities.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  have  allowed  legislation  which  applies  only  to 
the  home  rule  cities  within  a  particular  class.  On  the 
whole,  then,  although  there  are  a  large  number  of  city- 
made  charters  in  Minnesota,  there  has  not  been  much 
progress  in  municipal  reform.139 

HOME  EULE  CHAETEES  IN  COLOEADO 

Since  the  adoption  of  the  home  rule  amendment  in 
1901,  there  has  not  been  much  development  of  the  system 


64  APPLIED  HISTORY 

of  city-made  charters  in  Colorado.  The  twentieth  article 
of  the  State  Constitution,  which  is  better  known  as  the 
Bush  Amendment,  was  intended  primarily  to  establish 
the  "City  and  County  of  Denver "  under  a  home  rule 
charter ;  but  section  six  of  that  article  conferred  upon  all 
cities  of  the  first  and  second  class  the  power  to  adopt 
their  own  charters.  For  several  years  after  the  adoption 
of  this  amendment  Denver  was  the  only  city  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  the  new  system ;  but  even  Denver  was  not  able 
to  adopt  a  charter  upon  the  first  trial  in  1903.  The  pres- 
ent charter  was  approved  in  1904.140 

In  1913  the  charter  of  the  "City  and  County  of  Den- 
ver "  was  amended  so  as  to  establish  for  this  political 
area  a  commission  form  of  government.  The  people  of 
Colorado  have  also  amended  the  sixth  section  of  article 
twenty  of  the  Constitution  in  order  to  extend  to  all  cities 
of  2000  inhabitants  the  privilege  of  framing  their  own 
charters.  Moreover,  the  few  places  in  Colorado  that  have 
taken  advantage  of  this  form  of  self-government  have 
adopted  modern  charters :  Colorado  Springs  and  Pueblo 
have  commission  government;  and  on  January  10,  1914, 
Montrose  adopted  the  city  manager  plan.141 

HOME  EULE  CHAETEES  IN  OTHEE  STATES 

In  Oregon. —  Portland  was  the  first  city  in  Oregon  to 
adopt  a  home  rule  charter :  in  fact,  special  provision  was 
made  for  Portland  before  a  constitutional  amendment 
was  adopted.  The  first  charter  of  Portland  was  pat- 
terned after  the  old  type  of  legislative  charters.  But  the 
second  charter,  which  was  adopted  on  May  3,  1913,  pro- 
vides for  the  commission  form  of  government,  preferen- 
tial voting,  and  the  enactment  of  an  administrative  code. 
The  unique  home  rule  system  of  Oregon,  as  a  part  of  the 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  65 

direct  legislation  machinery,  anticipates  the  incorpora- 
tion of  all  of  the  cities  of  the  State  under  its  provisions. 
Thus  at  present  all  cities  of  the  State  are  really  under  the 
system.142 

In  Oklahoma. —  A  home  rule  clause  was  a  part  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  State  under  which  Oklahoma  was  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union ;  and  many  cities  have  already  taken 
advantage  of  its  provision.  Among  the  more  progressive 
cities  of  the  State,  El  Reno,  Guthrie,  Holdenville,  Law- 
ton,  Oklahoma  City,  and  Stillwater  have  home-made 
charters  providing  for  the  commission  form  of  govern- 
ment. At  the  present  writing  there  is  no  city  of  Okla- 
homa with  at  least  4000  inhabitants  but  what  is  operating 
under  the  commission  plan.143 

In  Michigan. —  The  growth  of  municipal-made  char- 
ters in  Michigan  has  not  been  rapid ;  and  yet,  the  enabling 
act  of  1909  anticipates  the  ultimate  extension  of  the  sys- 
tem to  all  the  municipalities  of  the  State.  Nevertheless, 
there  has  been  a  gradual  development  of  this  form  of 
self-government  since  the  amendment  of  1908.  East 
Jordan,  Fremont,  Pontiac,  and  Wyandotte  are  cities 
which  have  established  commission  government  by  munic- 
ipal-made charters;  and  charter  commissions  have  re- 
cently been  at  work  in  Owosso,  Saginaw,  Battle  Creek, 
and  Kalamazoo.  On  February  10,  1914,  the  citizens  of 
Detroit  voted  down  a  home  rule  charter  which  was  pro- 
gressive in  parts,  but  in  other  parts  followed  old  types  of 
organization.144 

In  Wisconsin. —  The  Wisconsin  home  rule  charter  sys- 
tem of  1911  was  short  lived,  for  the  Supreme  Court  held, 

5 


66  APPLIED  HISTORY 

in  a  test  case  brought  from  Milwaukee,  that  the  act  of  the 
legislature  establishing  it  was  unconstitutional.  In  this 
interesting  decision  the  court  held  that  under  the  Consti- 
tution of  Wisconsin  a  municipal  organization  could  be 
created  only  by  the  legislature,  and  that  the  legislature 
could  not  delegate  this  power  to  the  cities.  The  fate  of 
municipal-made  charters  in  Wisconsin  was  committed  to 
the  people:  the  proposed  constitutional  amendment  of 
1911  was  repassed  by  the  legislature  in  1913,  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  voters  in  November,  1914,  and  defeated, 
according  to  reports.145 

In  Texas. —  No  State  has  been  more  active  in  the 
adoption  of  home  rule  charters  than  Texas  since  the 
passage  of  the  enabling  act  in  1913.  Amarillo,  Denton, 
McKinney,  Sweetwater,  Waco,  Wichita  Falls,  and  Taylor 
have  adopted  new  charters;  and  Beaumont,  Corsicana, 
Dallas,  El  Paso,  Ennis,  Galveston,  Houston,  Houston 
Heights,  Marshall,  San  Antonio,  and  Terrell  have  amend- 
ed their  old  charters  under  the  authority  of  the  home  rule 
charter  system.  Of  the  cities  named,  Taylor  and  Denton 
have  adopted  the  city  manager  plan.  It  is  worthy  of 
note  that  under  the  system  Houston  has  made  some  rad- 
ical changes  in  its  commission  form  of  government.146 

In  Arizona. —  Phoenix,  the  capital  of  Arizona,  is  the 
only  city  in  that  State  which  has  adopted  a  home  rule 
charter.  This  instrument,  which  provides  for  the  com- 
mission form  of  government  and  a  city  manager,  has  been 
in  operation  since  April,  1914.147  Moreover,  it  appears 
that  at  the  present  time  Douglas  and  Bisbee  have  on  foot 
a  movement  for  the  adoption  of  commission  government 
charters.148 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  67 

In  Ohio. —  By  far  the  most  phenomenal  growth  in 
home  rule  charters  has  taken  place  in  Ohio,149  where  the 
home  rule  charter  system  went  into  operation  on  January 
1,  1913.  Since  that  time  twenty-five  cities  of  the  State 
have  elected  or  rejected  charter  commissions:  in  Am- 
herst,  Gallipolis,  Ironton,  Jackson,  Mansfield,  Marietta, 
Norwood,  and  Washington  C.  H.  no  charter  commissions 
were  elected;  in  Akron,  Canton,  Elyria,  Lorain,  Salem, 
Cincinnati,  and  Youngstown  the  proposed  charters  were 
rejected;  in  Cleveland,  Columbus,  Dayton,  Lakewood, 
Middletown,  and  Springfield  the  charters  submitted  by 
the  charter  commissions  were  ratified ;  and  in  Sandusky, 
Ashtabula,  and  Toledo  the  new  charters  have  not  yet  been 
referred  to  the  people.  This  is  a  wonderful  record  of 
municipal  activity  —  all  of  which  has  taken  place  during 
a  period  of  eighteen  months.  Moreover,  the  home-made 
charters  voted  upon  in  these  cities  are  most  interesting.150 

In  the  home  rule  charters  which  have  been  adopted  in 
Ohio,  aspects  of  nearly  all  modern  municipal  reforms  can 
be  found.  The  Cleveland  charter  provides  for  the  initia- 
tive, referendum,  recall,  short  ballot,  non-partisan  elec- 
tions, the  preferential  ballot,  and  the  merit  system. 
Lakewood  copied  largely  from  the  Cleveland  charter. 
Dayton  and  Springfield,  in  addition  to  many  of  the  Cleve- 
land features,  provide  for  a  city  manager.  Middletown 
has  established  the  commission  form  of  government.  Of 
all  the  charters  thus  far  submitted  to  the  people  of  Ohio, 
four  have  contained  the  city  manager  type  of  govern- 
ment, three  the  commission  form,  two  the  federal  plan, 
and  two  a  combination  form  of  the  city  manager  and 
federal  plans.151  It  is  too  early  to  make  an  estimate  of 
the  ultimate  success  of  the  home  rule  charter  system  in 
Ohio.  But  the  following  words  of  Mayo  Fesler,  secretary 


68  APPLIED  HISTORY 

of  the  Cleveland  Civic  League,  summarize  well  the  pres- 
ent situation: 

The  fear  that  existed  in  the  minds  of  many  that  cities  would 
run  wild  in  exercising  these  powers  of  local  self-government  has 
not  been  well  founded,  for  out  of  the  twenty-five  cities  which 
have  undertaken  to  frame  their  own  charters,  only  six  have  thus 
far  succeeded.  What  will  be  the  result  in  the  other  four  cities 
which  now  have  on  the  charters  under  way  is  yet  to  be  seen.  It 
is  clear  from  the  experience  from  these  cities  that  a  much  greater 
interest  has  been  aroused  in  municipal  affairs. 

Public  opinion  has  been  developed,  and  the  campaign  in  each 
of  these  cities,  whether  successful  or  unsuccessful,  has  resulted  in 
the  development  of  a  more  active  public  sentiment  in  favor  of 
local  self  government.  Municipal  home  rule  in  Ohio  has  come  to 
stay.152 

Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  prediction  of  Mr.  Fesler 
that  home  rule  in  Ohio  has  come  to  stay,  one  thing  is  cer- 
tain :  for  '  '  the  moment,  at  least,  Ohio  leads  the  nation  in 
the  municipal  government  movement.  Those  states 
which  would  aspire  to  similar  achievement  must  look 
first  of  all  to  the  home  rule  proposition.  It  is  the  first 
step  toward  freedom."153 

In  Nebraska. —  No  city  of  Nebraska  has  adopted  a 
home  rule  charter,  although  three  attempts  have  been 
made  at  charter-drafting.  Lincoln  elected  a  charter  con- 
vention in  May,  1913 ;  but  the  charter  which  was  submit- 
ted to  the  voters  in  December  was  rejected.  In  1913 
Omaha  selected  a  charter  commission,  but  the  charter 
framed  by  this  commission  was  defeated  at  the  polls  in 
March,  1914.  Hastings  also  elected  a  charter  convention 
in  April,  1913,  but  the  commission  adjourned  without 
submitting  a  charter  to  the  electors.  Lincoln  and  Omaha, 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  69 

however,  are  both  operating  at  the  present  time  under  the 
commission  form  of  government  as  provided  for  by  the 
general  laws  of  the  State.154 

OTHER  HOME  EULE  DEVELOPMENTS 

The  movement  for  local  self-government  is  not  con- 
fined to  cities,  and  the  home  rule  charter  system  has  led 
to  some  important  home  rule  developments  other  than 
municipal-made  charters.  Within  recent  years  the  tend- 
ency to  establish  some  definite  constitutional  status  for 
the  different  political  subdivisions  of  the  State  has  been 
greatly  strengthened  by  the  home  rule  agitation.  Legis- 
latures have  seen  fit  in  a  number  of  instances  to  extend 
large  privileges  of  self-government  to  the  local  areas 
when  the  courts  have  not  intervened.  Some  of  these 
developments  are  of  particular  interest  in  connection 
with  this  study. 

In  New  York. —  In  a  preceding  section  of  this  paper 
attention  was  called  to  New  York's  attempt  to  secure  a 
measure  of  home  rule  by  referring  all  special  acts  for  a 
particular  municipality  to  the  officers  of  that  city  for 
approval.  This  provision,  which  is  found  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  1894,  has  not  proved  very  successful.155  As  a 
result  there  is  at  present  a  movement  on  foot  to  adopt 
some  other  plan  of  home  rule  for  the  locality.  The  move- 
ment is  being  promoted  by  the  Municipal  Government 
Association  of  New  York,  which  in  1912  held  a  home  rule 
conference  at  Utica  and  adopted  a  program  of  reform. 
All  three  of  the  political  parties  —  Progressive,  Repub- 
lican, and  Democratic  —  incorporated  home  rule  planks 
in  their  State  platforms.  As  yet,  however,  no  concrete 
results  have  been  attained  in  New  York.156 


70  APPLIED  HISTORY 

In  Louisiana. —  The  State  of  Louisiana  in  1898  con- 
ferred upon  cities  the  power  to  amend  their  own  charters 
—  a  feature  of  home  rule  which  is  found  in  the  Town 
Charter  Law  of  Louisiana.  By  the  provisions  of  this  act 
any  municipality  may  propose  amendments  to  its  own 
charter  through  its  mayor  and  board  of  aldermen.  The 
proposed  amendments  are  submitted  to  the  Governor; 
and  if  they  are  not  protested  by  one-tenth  of  the  qualified 
voters  of  the  city,  the  Governor,  upon  the  advice  of  the 
Attorney  General,  approves  them,  provided  they  are  not 
inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  the  State.  When  the  amend- 
ments proposed  by  the  mayor  and  aldermen  are  pro- 
tested by  the  citizens  of  the  municipality,  the  Governor 
must  withhold  his  approval  until  the  amendments  have 
been  accepted  by  a  majority  of  the  electors  in  the  city. 
Under  this  system  it  would  be  possible  for  the  people  of 
a  particular  city  to  adopt  a  home  rule  charter  subject  to 
the  Constitutions  and  laws  of  the  State  and  the  United 
States.157 

In  Michigan. —  Although  not  extending  the  home  rule 
charter  system  to  counties,  the  legislature  of  Michigan 
has  conferred  large  powers  of  local  self-government  upon 
these  political  areas  of  the  State.  Under  the  legislation 
of  1909  the  board  of  supervisors  has  power  to  pass  laws, 
regulations,  and  ordinances  for  purely  county  affairs, 
providing  they  are  not  in  conflict  with  the  general  laws  of 
the  State  and  do  not  interfere  with  the  local  affairs  of 
any  of  the  other  subdivisions  of  the  State  within  the 
county.  The  supervisors  are  also  given  power  to  amend 
any  local  act  of  the  legislature  which  is  in  force  in  their 
county  and  which  has  to  do  with  county  affairs.  More- 
over, the  same  board  is  given  the  authority  to  change  the 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  71 

boundaries  of  cities,  villages,  and  school  districts  located 
within  the  county,  and  to  incorporate  primary  school  dis- 
tricts as  provided  by  law.  All  such  laws,  ordinances,  and 
regulations  which  are  passed  by  the  board  must  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Governor  for  his  acceptance.  Should  the 
Governor  not  approve  of  the  action  taken  by  the  super- 
visors, the  regulation  may  by  a  two-thirds  vote  be  re- 
passed  by  the  local  board  over  the  Governor's  veto.  All 
laws  passed  by  the  board  become  operative  only  after  the 
expiration  of  sixty  days.  If  the  electors  of  the  county 
within  fifty  days  after  the  adjournment  of  the  board  file 
a  petition  for  a  referendum,  signed  by  at  least  twenty 
percent  of  the  voters,  the  ordinance  does  not  go  into  effect 
until  approved  by  a  majority  vote.  It  is  apparent  that 
with  these  powers  the  counties  of  Michigan  may  in  the 
future  come  to  enjoy  as  much  real  home  rule  as  do  the 
home  rule  charter  counties  of  California.158 

In  New  Jersey. —  In  1911  the  legislature  of  New  Jer- 
sey enacted  a  model  charter  law  which  any  city,  town, 
township,  borough,  village,  or  municipality  may  adopt. 
This  model  charter  provides  for  the  commission  form  of 
government  and  extends  a  large  amount  of  self-govern- 
ment to  the  local  areas  operating  under  it.  But  before 
becoming  operative  in  any  of  the  subdivisions  of  the 
State  the  charter  must  be  assented  to  by  a  majority  of 
the  legal  voters  at  an  election  held  upon  the  request  of 
twenty  percent  of  the  legal  voters  of  the  area.  A  large 
number  of  the  cities  of  New  Jersey  have  already  adopted 
this  form  of  government.  Moreover,  the  original  act  was 
amended  in  1912  and  1913  for  the  purpose  of  conferring 
more  power  upon  the  local  areas  operating  under  the 
plan.159 


72  APPLIED  HISTORY 

In  Virginia. —  On  November  5,  1912,  the  people  of 
Virginia  adopted  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
which  is  known  as  the  home  rule  amendment,  but  it  does 
not  provide  for  the  home  rule  charter  system.  The  new 
provision  simply  authorizes  the  legislature  to  vary  some- 
what from  the  old  plan  in  granting  municipal  charters. 
But  the  city  treasurer,  city  commissioner  of  revenue,  city 
sergeant,  commonwealth's  attorney,  and  clerks  of  the 
various  city  courts  must  not  be  omitted  from  the  list  of 
elective  officers.  The  amendment  aims  to  give  the  cities 
of  the  State  home  rule  and  the  commission  form  of  gov- 
ernment; but  the  home  rule  possibilities  of  this  system 
are  not  apparent  from  an  examination  of  the  amend- 
ment.160 

In  Ohio. —  Ohio  has  not  only  established  a  home  rule 
charter  system,  but  by  a  constitutional  amendment  adopt- 
ed in  1912  the  cities  of  the  State  were  also  given  the 
privilege  of  adopting  by  referendum  vote  certain  model 
plans  of  government  to  be  enacted  by  the  legislature.  In 
1913  the  legislature  passed  an  act  embodying  three  dif- 
ferent forms  of  city  government  —  the  federal  plan,  the 
commission  plan,  and  the  city  manager  plan.  No  city  has 
yet  seen  fit  to  adopt  any  one  of  these  legislative  plans.161 


VI 

ANALYSIS  OF  HOME  RULE  CHAETEE 

SYSTEMS162 

HAVING  traced  the  growth  and  development  of  home  rule 
charters  in  the  United  States  it  is  now  possible  to  make  a 
critical  analysis  of  the  various  phases  of  the  system. 
Prom  the  table  which  accompanies  this  brief  analysis  it 
will  be  seen  that  while  the  systems  as  adopted  in  the 
various  States  are  practically  the  same  in  purpose  and  in 
principle,  there  are  many  differences  in  the  details. 

LOCAL  AEEAS  ENTITLED  TO  ADOPT  CHAETEES 

The  first  point  to  be  considered  in  making  an  analysis 
of  the  home  rule  charter  system  is  the  scope  and  appli- 
cation of  the  charter-making  power,  for  not  all  of  the 
local  areas  in  the  thirteen  home  rule  charter  States  are 
empowered  to  make  their  own  charters.  In  Missouri  only 
the  very  largest  cities  have  this  power  —  cities  of  more 
than  100,000  inhabitants.  The  same  is  true  in  Washing- 
ton, where  only  cities  with  a  population  of  more  than 
20,000  are  authorized  to  make  their  own  charters.  In 
Nebraska  and  Texas  the  privilege  is  extended  to  cities 
with  a  census  of  more  than  5000.  California  and  Arizona 
fix  3500  as  the  size  of  the  smallest  city  entitled  to  draft  a 
home  rule  charter;  but  California  also  confers  the  right 
upon  all  the  counties  of  the  State.  The  home  rule  laws 
of  Colorado  and  Oklahoma  apply  only  to  cities  of  two 
thousand  inhabitants  or  more.  From  the  accompanying 

73 


74  APPLIED  HISTORY 

table  it  will  be  noted  that  the  other  five  States  with  the 
home  rule  charter  system  have  endowed  all  the  cities  with 
this  right  of  local  autonomy. 

From  the  outset  there  has  been  a  tendency  to  extend 
the  scope  of  the  charter-making  power.  And  yet,  with 
the  exception  of  a  very  few  limitations  the  legislature 
everywhere  still  maintains  the  power  to  define  a  munici- 
pality. That  power,  however,  has  never  been  exercised  in 
such  a  way  as  to  limit  the  scope  of  the  home  rule  charter 
system. 

INITIATING  CHAETEE  PEOCEEDINGS 

In  the  original  home  rule  charter  systems  the  authori- 
ty for  initiating  charter  schemes  rested  with  the  local 
legislative  body.  But  experience  showed  that  this  body 
was  not  always  willing  to  inaugurate  proceedings  for  the 
adoption  of  a  charter  even  when  the  people  were  in  favor 
of  such  action.  As  a  result  the  newer  systems  have  pro- 
vided for  initiation  on  the  part  of  the  people  —  a  method 
that  has  also  been  added  as  a  feature  of  most  of  the  older 
systems.  At  the  present  time  the  local  legislative  au- 
thority in  ten  of  the  States  has  the  power  to  initiate  pro- 
ceedings. In  four  of  these  States  such  proceedings 
require  a  two-thirds  vote ;  an  ordinary  majority  vote  of 
the  municipal  legislature  is  all  that  is  required  to  start 
the  charter-making  machinery  in  five  States  of  this 
group ;  while  in  the  cities  of  Michigan  and  the  counties  of 
California  a  three-fifths  vote  is  necessary.  In  all  but  two 
of  these  States  —  Missouri  and  Washington  —  the  people 
also  are  given  power,  through  the  initiative  petition,  to 
start  proceedings  for  the  adoption  of  a  municipal-made 
charter.  Minnesota  stands  alone  in  conferring  the  power 
of  initiation  upon  the  judge  or  judges  of  the  district 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA 
TABLE  —  HOME  RULE  CHARTER  SYSTEMS 


75 


STATE  AND 
DATE  OF  ES- 
TABLISHMENT 
OP  SYSTEM 

1 

LOCAL  AREAS 
ENTITLED  TO 
ADOPT 
CHARTERS 

INITIATING  CHARTER  PROCEEDINGS 

g| 

II 

*3 
i-i<3 

p 

o  w 
!>Pu 

Missouri 
1875 

Cities   with  more 
than    100,000 
inhabitants 

Legislative   authority  of 
the  city1 

Upon    members    of   the 
charter    board 
(majority    vote) 

California 
1879 

Cities  with  more 
than  3500 
inhabitants,     and 
any  county   of 
the  State 

Two-thirds   vote    of   legislative 
body  of  city  or  petition  of  15% 
of  those  voting  for  Governor2 

Upon  members  of  the 
charter   board 
(majority    vote) 

Washington 
1889 

Cities   with    at 
least  20,000 
inhabitants 

Legislative   authority   of 
the   city  by  ordering 
special  census 

Upon  members  of  the 
charter   board 
(majority    vote) 

Minnesota 
1896 

Any  city  or 
village 

Judges  of  the  district  court  or 
a  petition  of   10%    of  those 
voting   at  the  last  preceding 
election 

Colorado 
1902 

Cities    with    at 
least   2000 
inhabitants 

A   petition   of   5%    of    the 
qualified    electors    voting    for 
Governor3 

Upon    question    of    a 
charter    convention 
(majority    vote) 

Oregon 
1906 

Any  city  or 
town 

The  charter  itself  is  proposed  by  an  initiative  petition  of 
eight  percent  of  the  legal  voters  and  filed  with  the  city 
clerk,   auditor,   or  recorder,   as  the  case  may  be,   who 
transmits  it  to  the  council 

Oklahoma 
1907 

Cities  with  more 
than  2000 
inhabitants 

Legislative     authority     or 
petition  of  25%   of  those  voting 
at   the  last   general  municipal 
election 

Upon   question   of   adopting 
a    new    charter 
(majority    vote) 

'  Michigan 
1909 

Any  city   or 
village 

Three-fifths  vote  of  legislative 
aody  of  city  or  petition  of  10% 
of  those  voting  for  the  city 
executive  officer4 

Upon   question   of  a 
charter    revision  * 
(majority    vote) 

Wisconsin 
19111 

Any  city 

Two-thirds5  vote  of  the  legis- 
lative body  of  the  city  or 
petition  of  5%   of  those  voting 
at   the  last   regular  municipal 
election 

Upon   question   of   holding 
a    convention 
(majority    vote) 

Texas 
1912 

Any  city  with 
more    than    5000 
inhabitants 

Two-thirds   vote   of   the 
legislative  body  of  the  city  or 
petition   of    10%    of   the 
qualified   voters   of  the   city 

Upon   question   of  the   elec- 
tion  of   charter    commission 
(majority    vote) 

Ohio 
1912 

Any  city  or 
village 

Two-thirds  vote  of  the 
legislative  body  of  the  city  or 
petition   of   10%    of  the 
qualified  voters 

Upon   question   of   selecting 
a    charter     commission 
(majority    vote) 

Nebraska 
1912 

Cities  with  more 
than  5000       . 
inhabitants 

Legislative   authority  or   petition 
of  5%   of  those  voting  at  last 
gubernatorial   election 

Upon    question    of    a 
charter   convention 
(majority    vote) 

Arizona 
1912 

Any  city  with 
more    than    3500 
inhabitants 

Legislative  authority  of  the  city 
or  petition  of  25%  of  those 
voting  at  the  last  preceding 
general  municipal   election 

Upon    question    of   proceed- 
ing with  charter-making 
(majority    vote) 

iThe      law 
was     declared 
unconstitution- 
al  by   the   Su- 
preme  Court. 

1  The  constitution  is  not  clear 
on  this  point. 
2  Three-fifths  vote  of  Board  of 
Supervisors  in  counties. 
3  Constitution      provided      for 
irst  charter  convention  in  Den- 
ver. 
4  Law  provides  for  first  char- 
ier commission  in  each  new  city. 
5  Or    majority    with    approval 
of  the  mavor. 

1  In   new   cities   by   voting 
for   members   of   the   charter 
commission. 

76 


APPLIED  HISTORY 


^ 

K 

>» 

b 

~ 

aasodOHj 
NO  axoA 
aaainban 

It 

'E  ® 

.0   0 

a' 

II 

C3  ">• 

li 

a" 

1! 

S 

*|12 

>  .2    *  "*  -"    4>    i 
J-i   —        M  tj  c3 

^     fe  vi  ** 

fe« 

g« 

lill 

>  ^ 

?R 

Jllf^'ij 

HOiAaag 

0   « 

°'O 

03  M"E     *| 

S-S 

°-S 

|S  .a  h  'g  ^  to  a 

is 

II 

Is 

!HJ1 

"So 

Is 

c  **  o*  ^  * 

«lj 

l!:l 

g£ 

.  «.S  . 

all  H 

^1 

£<a^«|£ 

XOIJ.VS 

g|||l 

111 

lllli! 

?ils« 

^! 

^i^ll 

o  ^  C  O 

.tS  O 

^  o  a1  ^  a  ^ 

«£l|£ 

°5 

°-8G 

R  BOARDS 

8NOIXVO 

-Minvnb 

reeholder  and  five 
ears  a  qualified 
voter 

reeholder  and  five 
ears  a  qualified 
voter 

freeholder  and 
lifted  elector,  hav- 
ing two  years 
revious  residence 

11  h 

l-i 

11 

!L 

P.  °o 

11 

freeholder  and  a 
qualified  voter  ^ 

II!  9 

1 

^ 

4   . 

6  ' 

Jj 

•* 

<J 

^5e,*l 

S 

bo 

<D  M 

Sit- 

«  w 

m    bO 

0 

"3-S 

"3.9 

li 

'p'S.ts  -,  >> 

"o.S 

•s  .a 

|| 

H 

Mii 

oo*^ 

'®'"x  S*® 

^**  t* 

1 

•d-0^ 

**•£ 

.2^.2 

5||^-g 

££k 

££% 

«^a 

§•«« 

g,°-g 

1®  « 

"8*3 

§•»  » 

a°-g 

IP 

£|« 

O    CO    _» 

P<  5 

P<  o  * 

I  szS  § 

a  ft 

|,|C8 

||« 

>%  JH 

*s 

>J  J-l 

"^  ^  •«   S   Qd 

'--.  " 

>»  t* 

«ft 

«ft 

mft 

PH"^-^    O 

•1 

m  ft 

m  » 

SHaawapi 

III 

i||jl 

rH 

1-1 

rH 

M 

1!" 

®  ^     a  > 

*S  <3 

OD 

O   OJ 

*o  o5 

0 

03 

*o  a) 

a 

o 

HTCXIJ, 

Board 
Freehold 

lj 

Board 
Freehold 

-  ~ 

«j 

Board 
Freehold 

lj 

-S3  ao  axva 

'C 

.2 

S  O3 

fl 

fa 
.«°° 

§co 
OJ 

C  co 

Is 

003 

Is 

Is 

li 

ONV  axvxg 

S 

03 

0 

^ 

9 

6  ' 

0    ' 

&  ""* 
0 

9 

O 

w 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA 


77 


aasoaoad 

|| 

"E    • 

•S  ° 

ii 

aaam&a?! 

* 

S 

a 

J 

«  00 

1-2 

aoiAaag 

1§ 

J 

JO  3KIJ, 

"o  ^, 

"oo 

s  . 

™ 

^S 

5 

0  Vi 

"S 

as 

NOIXVS 

13      ta 

ill  ll 

-NHdMOQ 

•yjS    ft 

^   ®^3   »*"   o  u, 

.2  >>  S 

M  '-5  *"  5  *B  -°  ^ 

."S  o 

II 

I'lrlP 

w 

_ 

® 

\ 

fi  « 

TER  BOARDS 

SXOIiLVO 

-i,anvn£) 

A  qualified  elector 
having  five  years 
previous  residenc 

"5 

1 
| 

0* 

.  freeholder  and  fi 
years  a  qualified 
voter 

A  freeholder  and  t 
qualified  elector 

IP 

ft 

<3 

ft  o< 

O 

1« 

1.3 

1.S 

*! 

|| 

|i|iipi 

w 

"f  h 

"It, 

*St 

•| 

u.Co0^!^^^ 

NOIM«a 

1:1 

•a"! 

M 

0   01   ° 

««| 

1:1 

}*iSC{j 

8,1- 

S,|« 

*r 

i|- 

*J*>tO_OJ                *"    ^" 

mft 

fflft 

w  ft 

na 

wo. 

?*igiiiii 

gaaanan 

lljll 

EB 

kiO  H39PIA^I 

^2        LJ*  c8 

^    05    §    ^ 

*»        ^  >"fl 

^  "  S3  ^ 

^25*'" 

"  ll'l 

«M 

— 

Charter 
Convention 

Charter 
Commission 

Charter 
Commission 

Convention  o 
Freeholders 

Board  of 
Freeholders 

.2 

03 

""*«  -g     s 

•INHKHSIiaVX 

CiH 

cs^ 

ON 

co  C<1 

gco 

•S3  iiO  HiLVCJ 

S  ^ 

$& 

*£ 

2S 

N  r^ 

0^  ^3  **•*•* 

axv  axvxs 

J3 

&~ 

OrH 

3a 

rjfjj 

78  APPLIED  HISTORY 

HOME  EULE  CHARTER  SYSTEMS  —  Continued 


SUBMISSION  OF  CHARTER 

ft 

&*'&» 

Is 

o 

a* 

• 

fc 
o 

c. 

£Hsi 

5s 

B 

°     A.    fc 

£>    g; 

«gw£ 

W   O   02   03 

I! 

X    M 

sip 

II 

2  §  3«> 

go 

H        ^ 

E-i  < 

^   5   « 

W  5 

o  5  o 

w  K 

«3Q  J2  o 

£8 

£w 

>£<< 

>B 

Four-sev- 

enths of 

those  voting 

Missouri 

Must    be    submitted 

thereat  (in 

1875 

within  30  days 

St.  Louis  a 

majority 

vote    is 

sufficient) 

Published  at  least  ten 

Must  be  submitted  in  not 

Majority 

All  charters  must  be 

California 

times  in  daily  paper 

less  than  20  nor  more 

of  those 

approved  or  rejected 

1879 

before  submission  to 

than   40   days  after 

voting 

as  a  whole  by  the 

the  people1 

completion  x 

thereon 

legislature 

Washington 
1889 

Published  for  at  least 
30  days  in  two  daily 
papers 

Must   be    submitted 
within   fifty   days   after 
completion 

Majority 
of  those 
voting 
thereon 

Must  be  submitted  at  the 

Four-sev- 

next election   after  com- 

enths of 

Minnesota 

pletion.       Legislative 

those 

1896 

authority    may    call 

voting 

a  special  election 

thereat 

Published  three  times 

Must  be  submitted  in  no1 

Majority 

Colorado 

a   week   apart   in 

less  than  30  nor  more 

of  those 

1902 

official  newspaper  of 

than  60  days  after 

voting 

the  city 

completion 

thereon 

Council  must  act  within 

Oregon 
1906 

Published   in   an   in- 
formation pamphlet 
with  arguments  for 
and    against   and   dis- 
tributed   to    every 
voter  by  city   clerk 
not  less  than  8  days 
before  the  election 

30  days.     If  it  rejects  or 
fails   to   act,    city   clerk 
submits  charter  to  voters 
at  next   ensuing   election. 
tf  council  adopts  charter, 
may  proclaim  it  in  force 
or  submit  to  people.      If 
declared    in   force,    people 
by  10%   petition  may 

Majority 
of  those 
voting 
thereon 

demand  referendum 

All  charters  must  be 

Published  in  a  daily 

Must  be  submitted  in  not 

Majority 

submitted  to  the  Gov- 

Oklahoma 
1907 

newspaper   for   21 
days  or  for  three  con- 
secutive times  in  a 
weekly  paper 

less  than  20   nor  more 
than  30  days  after 
publication 

of  those 
voting 
thereon 

ernor  who   must  ap- 
prove them   if  not  in 
conflict  with  the  law 
of  the  State 

Publication  left  to  the 

All  charters  must  be 
submitted  to  the  Gov- 

Michigan 
1909 

discretion  of  the  char- 
;er  commission,  except 
in   new   cities   where 
publication  is  required 
not  less  than  two  nor 

Charter    commission   fixes 
time    of    submitting 
charter   to   the   people 

Majority 
of  those 
voting 
thereon 

ernor    before    being 
voted  upon  by  the 
people.     If  he  disap- 
proves,   he    returns 
charter  to  the  com- 

more than  four  weeks 

mission  for  further 

before    the    election 

consideration 

Published   bv   city 

Submitted  at  next  munic- 

•   Majority 

Wisconsin 
19111 

clerk  according  to 
provisions  made  by 
the  convention 

ipal,    judicial,    or   school 
election    held    after 
publication 

of  those 
voting 
thereon 

Texas 
1912 

City  clerk  must  mail 
a  copy  of  proposed 
charter  to  every  voter 
within  30  days  of  the 
election 

VTust  be  submitted  in  not 
less  than   40   days  nor 
more  than  90  days  after 
completion 

Majority 
of  those 
voting 
thereat 

HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA 
HOME  RULE  CHARTER  SYSTEMS  —  Continued 


79 


SUBMISSION  OF  CHARTER 

1 

ft 

H 

EH!* 

IE 

0 

8 

0  «.  fc 

£s 

2§si 

ii 

J 

W  8  o 
*g£ 

si 

isle 

£2|| 

11 

Bg 

H  {„  CM 

Uj 

g* 

w  = 

Ohio 
1912 

City  clerk  must  mail 
each  voter  a  copy  of 
charter   not  less  than 
30   days  before  the 
election 

Charter   commission    fixes 
time  of  submitting  char- 
ter to  the  people,  but  it 
must  be  within  one  year 
after    election    of 
commission 

Majority 
of  those 
voting 
thereon 

Nebraska 
1912 

Published   by   city 
clerk  at  least  three 
different  times  a  week 
apart  in   a   daily 

Must   be    submitted 
within    30    days    after 
publication 

Majority 
of  those 
voting 

newspaper 

Published  in  a  daily 

newspaper   for   21 

All  charters  must  be 

days  or  for  three  con- 

Must be  submitted  in  not 

Majority 

submitted  to  the  Gov- 

Arizona 

secutive  times  in   a 

less  than   20   nor  more 

of  those 

ernor  who  must  aD- 

1912 

weekly  paper.     Pub- 

than 30  davs  after 

voting 

prove  them  if  not  in 

lication  to  take  place 

publication 

thereon 

conflict  with  the  law 

within    20    days    after 

of  the  State 

completion 

1  When  there  is  no 

!The      law 
was     declared 
unconstitution- 
al by   the    Su- 
preme  Court. 

daily    paper    publica- 
tion is  made   3    times 
in  a  weekly.      When 
no  weekly,    charter  is 
posted  in  three  differ- 
ent places  in  the  coun- 

1 30    to     60     days    for 
counties. 

• 

ty. 

80  APPLIED  HISTORY 

HOME  RULE  CHARTER  SYSTEMS  —  Continued 


STATE  AND 
DATE  OF  Es- 
TABLISHMKNT 
OF  SYSTEM 

CHABTEE  AMENDMENTS 

°§ 
%< 

2  « 
C6 

Is 

<* 

4 

<j 

• 

II 

Missouri 
1875 

By  legislative  authority  of 
the  city 

Three-fifth  of  those  voting 
thereat 

The  legislative  authority 
of  St.  Louis  may  order 
at  any  time  an  election  of 
Board  of  Freeholders  to 
revise  charter1 

California 
1879 

By  legislative  authority  of 
the  local  area  or  by  an 
initiative  petition  of   15% 
of  those  voting  for  Governor1 

Majority  of  those  voting 
thereon  and  approval  by 
the  legislature  as  a  whole 

Washington 
1889 

By  legislative  authority  of 
the  city 

Majority  of  those  voting 
thereon 

Minnesota 
1896 

By  Board  of  Freeholders  or 
initiative  petition   of   five 
percent  of   the  voters 

Three-fifths   of  those 
voting  thereat 

Board   of   Freeholders 
may  submit  new  charter 
at  any  time,  being  a 
permanent  body 

Colorado 
1902 

By  an   initiative  petition  of 
5%    of  the  qualified  electors 
voting  for   Governor 

Majority  of  those  voting 
thereon 

A  new  charter  convention 
must  be  elected  within  30 
days  after  rejection  of 
first  home  rule  charter 

Oregon 
1906 

By  legislative  authority  of 
the  city  or  initiative  petition 
of  8%  of  qualified  voters 

Majority  of  those  voting 
thereon 

Oklahoma 
1907 

By  legislative  authority  of 
the  city  or  by  an  initiative 
petition  of  25%   of  those 
voting  at  the  next  preceding 
general   municipal   election 

Majority  of  those  voting 
thereon  and  approval  by 
the  Governor 

Michigan 
1909 

Bv  three-fifths  vote  of  legis- 
lative  authority  of  the  city 
or  by  an   initiative  petition 
of  10%   of  those  voting  for 
the   city   executive   officer 

Majority  of  those  voting 
thereon  and  previous  ap- 
proval by  the   Governor 
or  passage  over  his  veto 
by  the  legislative 
authority  of  the  city1 

In  new  cities  the  first 
charter    commission    or 
successively  elected  new 
commissions  continue  to 
submit    charters    until 
one  is  adopted 

Wisconsin 
19111 

By  two-thirds2  vote  of  legis- 
lative authority   of   the   city 
or  by  an  initiative  petition 
of    10%    of  those  voting  at 
the  last  regular  municipal 
election 

Majority  of  those  voting 
thereon 

Texas 
1912 

By    legislative    authority    or 
initiative  petition  of   10% 
of   the   qualified   electors 

Majority  of  those  voting 
thereat 

Ohio 
1912 

By  two-thirds  vote  of  legis- 
lative  authority  of  the  city 
or  by  an  initiative  petition 
of  10%   of  the  qualified 
electors 

Majority  of  those  voting 
thereon 

Nebraska 
1912 

By  legislative  authority  of 
the  city  or  initiative  petition 
of  5%  of  those  voting  at  the 
last    gubernatorial    election 

Majority  of  those  voting 
thereon 

New   charter   convention 
may  be  called  by  mayor 
and  city  council  or  by 
petition  of  5%  of  those 
voting  at  last  guber- 
natorial election 

Arizona 
1912 

By    legislative    authority    or 
initiative  petition   of   25% 
of  those  voting  at  last 
preceding   general 
municipal   election 

Majority  of  those  voting 
thereon  and  approval  by 
the  Governor 

1  T  he      1  a  -w 
was     declared 
unconstitution- 
al   by   the    Su- 
preme   Court. 

1  10%   for  counties. 
2  Or     majority     with     ap 
proval  of  the  mayor. 

1  Approval  by  Governor 
unnecessary    for     amend- 
ments   submitted    by    the 
initiative. 

1  Special  for  St.  Louis. 

HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  81 

court;  but  even  in  Minnesota  the  people  may  start  the 
movement  by  a  petition.  The  provisions  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  Colorado  make  it  difficult  to  tell  whether  the  local 
legislative  authority  has  any  power  to  institute  proceed- 
ings: it  appears  that  the  people  are  the  only  authority 
that  can  take  the  initiative.  In  Oregon  the  matter  is  left 
entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  people. 

Thus,  in  all  of  the  home  rule  charter  States,  except 
Minnesota,  Oregon,  and  Colorado,  the  initiation  of  char- 
ter-making is  vested  in  the  local  law-making  authorities, 
and  in  all  but  two  of  these  thirteen  States  the  people  also 
may  start  the  charter-making  machinery  by  use  of  the 
initiative  petition,  signed  by  from  five  to  twenty-five  per- 
cent of  the  voters.  But  in  all  cases,  with  the  exception  of 
Oregon  and  Minnesota,  a  further  majority  vote  of  the 
people  is  necessary  in  order  to  actually  set  the  machinery 
into  operation  —  in  three  of  the  States  this  vote  is  taken 
upon  the  election  of  members  of  the  charter  board,  while 
in  the  other  eight  States  it  is  taken  upon  the  question  of 
proceeding  with  charter-making. 

In  practice,  however,  it  may  be  said  that  the  people 
everywhere  determine  the  advisability  of  home-made 
charters.  "Back  of  judges,  councils,  and  mayors,  stand 
the  people,  and  if  a  considerable  number  of  citizens  de- 
mand a  new  charter,  the  proper  authorities  will,  out  of 
respect  for  this  popular  demand,  set  the  legal  machinery 
in  motion. ' ' 163  To  be  sure,  this  has  not  always  been  true ; 
and  yet  the  people  have  usually  in  the  long  run  been  able 
to  compel  the  local  officials  to  act.  Voluntary  organiza- 
tions have  also  had  much  to  do  with  the  successful  work- 
ing of  these  systems:  studies  in  local  government  have 
been  made,  charters  have  been  drafted,  and  reform  pro- 
grams have  been  mapped  out  long  before  the  legal  ma- 

6 


82  APPLIED  HISTORY 

chinery  has  been  set  into  operation.164  These  activities 
have  often  simplified  matters  and  have  undoubtedly  been 
largely  responsible  for  whatever  reform  has  been  accom- 
plished under  the  home  rule  charter  systems. 

THE  CHABTEE  BOARDS 

After  the  people  have  once  decided  upon  a  home  rule 
charter  and  the  legal  machinery  for  its  making  has  been 
set  into  operation,  the  next  step  in  the  process  is  the 
selection  of  a  charter  board.  All  of  the  States  except 
Oregon  provide  for  the  actual  framing  of  the  charter  by  a 
committee  of  citizens  —  generally  referred  to  as  a  charter 
board.  Oregon,  however,  provides  for  the  proposal  of 
home-made  charters  under  the  system  of  direct  legisla- 
tion in  force  in  that  State  —  that  is,  through  the  initiative 
and  referendum.  In  six  of  the  States  the  charter  board  is 
called  a  "board  of  freeholders " — which  was  the  earlier 
name  employed.  Three  of  the  States  —  Michigan,  Texas, 
and  Ohio  —  term  the  board  a  "charter  commission ". 
Wisconsin  and  Colorado  give  the  citizen  committee  the 
name  of  "charter  convention ",  while  the  Constitution  of 
Nebraska  has  combined  the  old  and  new  ideas  and  created 
a  ' i  convention  of  freeholders '  \ 

The  number  of  members  on  the  charter  boards  varies : 
six  States  provide  fifteen  as  the  proper  number;  Missouri 
specifies  thirteen;  Arizona  fourteen;  and  Colorado 
twenty-one.  Oklahoma  provides  for  an  election  of  two 
members  from  each  ward  of  the  city,  and  Michigan  for 
one  from  each  ward  and  three  at  large.  The  most  unique 
provision  in  regard  to  the  number  of  members  is  found  in 
Texas,  where  the  board  is  to  be  composed  of  not  less  than 
fifteen  members  and  not  more  than  one  for  every  3000 
inhabitants.  Thus,  in  Texas,  the  exact  number  is  left  to 
each  individual  city. 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  83 

In  all  of  the  States,  except  Minnesota,  the  charter 
boards  are  elected  by  the  people  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
framing  a  charter:  they  are  in  fact  small  constituent 
assemblies  in  which  a  constitution  for  the  city  is  drafted. 
The  charter  board  is  appointed  in  Minnesota  by  the 
judges  of  the  district  court  in  which  the  city  is  located, 
and  the  members  serve  for  a  term  of  four  years : 165  that 
is  to  say,  it  is  a  permanent  body  preserved  for  future 
suggestions  and  amendments,  as  well  as  for  the  purpose 
of  drafting  new  charters  in  case  the  first  are  rejected  by 
the  people. 

Some  qualifications  of  membership  on  the  charter 
board  are  specified  in  all  but  one  of  the  States  having 
such  an  institution.  In  seven  of  the  States  one  must  be  a 
freeholder  in  order  to  be  elected  to  the  board ;  in  four  of 
these  States  he  must  also  have  been  for  five  years  a  quali- 
fied elector ;  and  in  the  other  three  he  need  only  be  a  legal 
voter  at  the  time  of  election.  In  Washington  he  must 
also  have  had  a  two  years  previous  residence.  Colorado 
requires  candidates  for  the  charter  convention  to  be  tax- 
payers and  qualified  voters  five  years.  Michigan,  Wis- 
consin, and  Ohio  demand  that  members  of  the  board  be 
qualified  voters.  Michigan  also  requires  three  years 
previous  residence,  and  Wisconsin  five  years  previous 
residence. 

The  original  home  rule  charter  States  provided  no 
compensation  for  members  of  the  charter  board,  but  sev- 
eral of  the  newer  systems  have  conferred  upon  the  city's 
legislative  body  the  power  to  grant  compensation.  This 
is  true  in  Colorado,  Michigan,  and  Wisconsin.  Minnesota 
and  Arizona  provide  for  paying  certain  expenses  of  the 
board. 

It  has  already  been  observed  that  all  of  the  charter 


84  APPLIED  HISTORY 

boards,  except  those  of  Minnesota,  are  temporary  bodies. 
Further  than  this  the  law  in  most  of  the  States  places  a 
limit  upon  time  of  service,  that  is,  a  time  limit  is  set 
within  which  a  charter  must  be  drafted.  Four  States  — 
Missouri,  Oklahoma,  Michigan,  and  Arizona  —  fix  ninety 
days  as  the  maximum  time  necessary  for  a  charter  board 
to  complete  its  work.  Thirty  days  is  the  limit  in  Wash- 
ington ;  sixty  days  in  Colorado ;  one  hundred  and  twenty 
days  in  California;  four  months  in  Nebraska;  and  six 
months  in  Minnesota.  Wisconsin,  Texas,  and  Ohio  place 
no  limitation  upon  the  time  within  which  the  board  must 
act.  Eight  States  also  specify  the  vote  of  the  charter 
board  which  is  necessary  to  adopt  a  charter :  it  appears 
that  in  all  of  these  States  only  a  majority  of  the  board 
need  agree  upon  the  proposed  charter  in  order  to  secure 
its  submission  to  the  people. 

SUBMISSION  TO  THE  PEOPLE 

After  a  charter  has  been  drafted  by  the  charter  board 
and  authenticated  to  the  proper  authority  the  next  step 
is  its  publication  and  submission  to  the  people.  All  but 
two  of  the  thirteen  States  provide  some  method  of  famil- 
iarizing the  voters  with  the  proposed  charter  before  it  is 
submitted  to  them  for  their  decision.  The  details  of  these 
methods  vary  considerably,  and  for  the  facts  in  each  case 
the  reader  is  referred  to  the  chart  on  pages  75-80.  The 
most  common  method  of  publishing  the  proposed  charter 
is  through  the  columns  of  a  newspaper  —  six  States  def- 
initely prescribing  this  method.  Two  States  —  Michigan 
and  Wisconsin  —  leave  the  method  of  the  publication  to 
the  discretion  of  the  charter  board.  Perhaps  the  best 
method  of  distribution  is  found  in  Oregon,  Texas,  and 
Ohio  where  a  copy  of  the  proposed  charter  is  sent  to 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  85 

every  voter  in  the  city.  In  Texas  and  Ohio  the  city  clerk 
mails  to  every  voter  a  copy  of  the  charter,  and  in  Oregon 
the  city  clerk  has  the  charter  published  in  an  information 
pamphlet,  together  with  arguments  for  and  against  the 
charter,  which  is  then  distributed  to  all  the  voters. 

After  the  charter  has  been  properly  published  there 
follows  its  reference  to  the  people.  In  this  there  is  also  a 
great  variety  of  provisions  in  regard  to  the  time  at  which 
the  proposed  charter  is  to  be  submitted,  nearly  every 
State  having  a  special  plan  of  its  own.  Some  States  fix 
but  one  limit  in  regard  to  submission,  while  some  set  two 
limits :  that  is  to  say,  some  States  fix  a  time  limit  within 
which  the  charter  can  not  be  submitted  as  well  as  a  limit 
within  which  it  must  be  submitted,  while  some  fix  only 
the  time  limit  within  which  the  charter  must  be  voted 
upon  by  the  people.  Outside  of  these  two  groups  are 
those  States  which  leave  the  time  of  submission  to  the 
charter  board,  or  actually  fix  some  subsequent  election  as 
the  time  for  the  popular  referendum.  In  the  thirteen 
different  systems  the  time  of  submission  is  based  in  some 
instances  upon  the  time  of  publication  and  in  other  cases 
upon  the  time  of  completion. 

ADOPTION  BY  THE  PEOPLE 

The  adoption  of  the  proposed  charter  by  the  people  is 
of  course  the  most  important  step  in  the  process  of 
charter-making.  The  law  prescribes  a  majority  vote  as 
sufficient  for  adoption  in  all  but  two  of  the  States.  In 
some  of  these  States,  however,  the  vote  must  be  a  ma- 
jority of  those  voting  "thereat",  but  in  most  cases  a 
majority  of  those  voting  "thereon"  is  all  that  is  neces- 
sary. The  distinction  between  '  '  thereat ' '  and  '  '  thereon ' ' 
is  an  important  one,  since  the  courts  have  held  "thereon" 


86  APPLIED  HISTORY 

to  mean  the  vote  on  the  charter  only,  while  " thereat" 
means  the  vote  cast  at  the  election.  Ten  of  the  States 
have  established  the  easier  method  of  ratification,  name- 
ly, a  simple  majority  of  those  voting  on  the  charter. 
Texas  requires  a  simple  majority  of  those  voting  thereat; 
while  Missouri  and  Minnesota  require  four-sevenths  of 
those  voting  thereat. 

THE  VETO  OF  CHAETEES 

In  most  of  the  States  ratification  by  the  people  is  suf- 
ficient to  put  the  charter  into  operation ;  but  in  four  of  the 
States  there  are  certain  vetoes  or  quasi- vetoes  which  will 
bear  examination.  In  California  all  charters  after  ratifi- 
cation by  the  people  must  be  submitted  to  the  legislature 
for  approval.  The  legislature  can  not  alter  the  charter 
but  is  required  to  reject  or  adopt  it  as  a  whole.  It  is 
significant  that  out  of  the  large  number  of  charters  sub- 
mitted to  the  legislature  since  1879  not  one  has  been  re- 
jected. Oklahoma  and  Arizona  require  all  charters  to  be 
submitted  to  the  Governor,  instead  of  to  the  legislature. 
If  they  are  not  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  the  State,  the  Governor  must  approve  them.  Thus,  the 
Governor  has  only  a  quasi-veto  on  home-made  charters  in 
these  two  States.  Michigan  has  a  still  more  unique  pro- 
vision: there  all  charters  must  be  submitted  to  the  Gov- 
ernor before  being  submitted  to  the  people,  and  if  he 
disapproves  he  returns  the  instrument  to  the  charter 
commission  for  further  consideration. 

THE  AMENDMENT  OF  CHAETEES 

The  methods  of  amending  home  rule  charters  vary  as 
greatly  as  the  methods  of  initiating  charter  proceedings ; 
and  yet  in  any  particular  State  the  two  processes  are  very 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  87 

similar.  The  legislative  authority  of  the  city  may  pro- 
pose charter  amendments  in  eleven  of  the  States.  In 
eight  of  these  States  a  simple  majority  vote  of  the  legis- 
lative body  is  all  that  is  required ;  but  Michigan  requires 
a  three-fifths  vote,  and  Wisconsin  and  Ohio  a  two-thirds 
vote.  In  eleven  of  the  States  the  people  may  also  propose 
amendments  through  an  initiative  petition  signed  by  from 
five  to  twenty-five  percent  of  the  voters.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  Missouri  and  Washington  have  not  seen  fit  to  confer 
this  right  upon  the  people.  In  Minnesota  amendments 
are  proposed  by  the  board  of  freeholders  as  well  as  by  the 
people. 

After  amendments  have  been  proposed  the  process  is 
about  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  proposed  charters :  first 
there  is  the  publication,  and  then  the  reference  to  the 
people.  Six  of  the  States  require  only  a  majority  vote  of 
those  voting  ' '  thereon ' '  for  ratification.  The  approval  of 
the  legislature  is  also  necessary  in  California;  and  in 
Oklahoma  and  Arizona  the  confirmation  of  the  Governor 
is  required ;  while  in  Michigan  the  assent  of  the  Governor 
must  precede  submission  to  the  people,  or  in  case  of  dis- 
approval passage  over  his  veto  by  the  legislative  author- 
ity of  the  city  is  necessary.  The  other  States — excepting 
Texas  —  require  more  than  a  mere  majority  vote  for  rati- 
fication. Texas  requires  a  majority  of  those  voting 
"thereat";  while  Missouri  and  Minnesota  are  not  con- 
tent with  a  mere  majority  but  demand  a  three-fifths  vote 
of  those  voting  "thereat"  for  the  adoption  of  all  charter 
amendments. 

In  addition  to  the  regular  process  of  charter-making 
and  charter-revision,  five  States  have  special  provisions 
in  regard  to  the  adoption  of  new  home  rule  charters.  In 
Missouri  the  legislative  body  of  St.  Louis  is  given  power 


88  APPLIED  HISTORY 

to  order  an  election  of  a  board  of  freeholders  at  any  time 
to  revise  its  charter.  The  board  of  freeholders  in  Minne- 
sota—  being  a  permanent  body  —  may  submit  a  new 
charter  at  its  discretion.  In  Colorado,  after  the  rejection 
of  a  charter  —  when  the  machinery  has  once  been  put  in 
motion  —  a  new  convention  must  be  held  within  thirty 
days,  and  this  process  repeated  until  a  charter  is  adopted ; 
while  in  new  cities  of  Michigan  the  first  charter  commis- 
sion or  the  successively  elected  new  commissions  continue 
to  submit  charters  until  one  is  adopted.  Nebraska  con- 
fers upon  the  mayor  and  council  the  power  to  call  a  new 
charter  convention  at  any  time.  The  people  also  have 
this  authority  through  the  initiative  petition.  In  all  the 
other  States  changes  are  made  in  the  home  rule  charters 
by  the  regular  processes  of  amendment. 


VII 
STATUS  OF  THE  HOME  RULE  CHARTER  AREAS 

REFERENCE  has  been  made  in  different  parts  of  this  paper 
to  the  fact  that  even  in  the  home  rule  charter  States  the 
local  areas  with  home-made  charters  do  not  have  real 
home  rule.  The  local  selection  of  administrative  officials 
and  the  privilege  of  local  referenda  have  been  largely 
realized  even  outside  the  home  rule  charter  States;  but 
the  authority  to  be  the  sole  judge  of  the  form  of  the  local 
government  and  the  power  to  carry  on  local  affairs  abso- 
lutely without  State  interference  have  not  been  obtained 
in  the  local  areas  even  under  the  home  rule  charter  sys- 
tem. What  then  is  the  real  status  of  the  home  rule 
charter  areas? 

Thus  far  every  State  which  has  provided  a  home  rule 
charter  system  has  placed  certain  limitations  upon  the 
powers  of  the  local  areas  not  only  in  the  framing  of 
charters  but  also  in  the  exercise  of  the  functions  of  local 
government  under  these  home-made  charters.  The  Con- 
stitutions and  laws  of  Missouri,  California,  Washington, 
Minnesota,  Oklahoma,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Nebraska, 
and  Arizona  all  contain  large  limitations  upon  the  power 
of  the  local  areas  in  drafting  their  own  charters.  The 
governments  of  the  various  areas  which  are  entitled  to 
draft  their  own  organic  laws  must  be  consistent  with  and 
are  subject  to  the  laws  and  Constitution  of  the  State  of 
which  they  form  a  part.  California  guards  these  limita- 
tions by  requiring  the  submission  of  all  charters  to  the 

89 


90  APPLIED  HISTORY 

legislature  for  ratification ;  while  Oklahoma  and  Arizona 
accomplish  the  same  thing  by  making  the  approval  of  the 
Governor  necessary  to  the  validity  of  such  a  charter. 
And  Michigan  provides  for  a  system  of  review  by  the 
Governor  before  the  proposed  charter  is  submitted  to  the 
people.  Moreover,  in  the  other  home  rule  States  these 
limitations  are  likewise  of  special  interest. 

The  fundamental  law  of  Oregon  is  conspicuously  free 
from  specific  limitations  upon  the  local  areas,  but  in  the 
following  provision  ample  grounds  for  legislative  inter- 
ference is  evident:  "Acts  of  the  legislative  assembly  in- 
corporating towns  and  cities  shall  restrict  their  powers  of 
taxation,  borrowing  money,  contracting  debts  and  loan- 
ing their  credit. " 166  A  similar  provision  is  found  in  the 
Constitution  of  Ohio,  which  makes  difficult  the  construc- 
tion of  the  following  section:  "Municipalities  shall  have 
authority  to  exercise  all  powers  of  local  self-govern- 
ment".167 Colorado  and  Texas  stand  in  a  class  by  them- 
selves in  the  measure  of  home  rule  which  they  have  con- 
ferred upon  their  local  areas  by  the  home  rule  charter 
system.  The  Colorado  grant  is  the  more  comprehensive 
of  the  two,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  sections : 

From  and  after  the  certifying  to  and  filing  with  the  Secretary 
of  State  of  a  charter  framed  and  approved  in  reasonable  con- 
formity with  the  provisions  of  this  article,  such  city  or  town,  and 
the  citizens  thereof,  shall  have  the  powers  ....  necessary, 
requisite  or  proper  for  the  government  and  administration  of  its 
local  and  municipal  matters,  including  power  to  legislate  upon, 
provide,  regulate,  conduct  and  control : 

(a)  The  creation  and  terms  of  municipal  offices,  agencies 
and  employments ;  the  definition,  regulation  and  alteration  of  the 
powers,  duties,  qualifications  and  terms  of  tenure  of  all  munic- 
ipal officers,  agents  and  employes ; 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  91 

(b)  The  creation  of  police  courts;  the  definition  and  regu- 
lation of  the  jurisdiction,  powers  and  duties  thereof,  and  the 
election  or  appointment  of  police  magistrates  therefor ; 

(c)  The  creation  of  municipal  courts;  the  definition  and 
regulation  of  the  jurisdiction,  powers  and  duties  thereof,  and  the 
election  or  appointment  of  the  officers  thereof ; 

(d)  All  matters  pertaining  to  municipal  elections  in  such 
city  or  town,  and  to  electoral  votes  therein  on  measures  sub- 
mitted under  the  charter  or  ordinances  thereof,  including  the 
calling  or  notice  and  the  date  of  such  election  or  vote,  the  regis- 
tration of  voters,  nominations,  nomination  and  election  systems, 
judges  and  clerks  of  election,  the  form  of  ballots,  balloting,  chal- 
lenging, canvassing,  certifying,  the  result,  securing  the  purity  of 
elections,  guarding  against  abuses  of  the  elective  franchise,  and 
tending  to  make  such  elections  or  electoral  votes  non-partisan  in 
character ; 

(e)  The  issuance,  refunding  and  liquidation  of  all  kinds  of 
municipal  obligations,  including  bonds  and  other  obligations  of 
park,  water  and  local  improvement  districts; 

(f)  The  consolidation  and  management  of  park  or  water 
districts  in  such  cities  or  towns  or  within  the  jurisdiction  there- 
of ;  but  no  such  consolidation  shall  be  effective  until  approved  by 
the  vote  of  a  majority,  in  each  district  to  be  consolidated,  of  the 
qualified  electors  voting  therein  upon  the  question ; 

(g)  The  assessment  of  property  in  such  city  or  town  for 
municipal  taxation  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  thereon 
for  municipal  purposes  and  special  assessments  for  local  im- 
provements; such  assessment,  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  and 
special  assessments  to  be  made  by  municipal  officials  or  by  the 
county  or  state  officials  as  may  be  provided  by  the  charter; 

(h)  The  imposition,  enforcement  and  collection  of  fines  and 
penalties  for  the  violation  of  any  of  the  provisions  of  the  charter, 
or  of  any  ordinance  adopted  in  pursuance  of  the  charter. 

It  is  the  intention  of  this  article  to  grant  and  confirm  to  the 
people  of  all  municipalities  coming  within  its  provisions  the  full 
right  of  self-government  in  both  local  and  municipal  matters, 


92  APPLIED  HISTORY 

and  the  enumeration  herein  of  certain  powers  shall  not  be  con- 
strued to  deny  to  such  cities  and  towns,  and  to  the  people  thereof, 
any  right  or  power  essential  or  proper  to  the  full  exercise  of  such 
right. 

The  statutes  of  the  State  of  Colorado,  so  far  as  applicable, 
shall  continue  to  apply  to  such  cities  and  towns,  except  in  so  far 
as  superseded  by  the  charters  of  such  cities  and  towns  or  by 
ordinance  p'assed  pursuant  to  such  charters.168 

The  Texas  grant  of  power,  however,  is  not  far  behind 
the  Colorado  law;  and  yet  the  broad  grant  of  power  to 
the  home  rule  cities  of  Texas  is  a  grant  by  statutory 
enactment  and  not  by  constitutional  authority.  Hence 
the  Texas  plan  rests  upon  legislative  tolerance,  while  the 
Colorado  system  rests  upon  the  will  of  the  people.  To  be 
sure  the  Texas  home  rule  charter  system  was  established 
by  a  constitutional  amendment  adopted  in  1912.  But  an 
enabling  act  was  necessary  to  make  the  system  workable ; 
and  it  is  this  enabling  act  which  contains  the  grant  of 
power  to  the  home  rule  areas  of  the  State.  Indeed,  the 
original  home  rule  charter  system  of  Colorado  did  not 
contain  the  broad  grant  of  authority  found  in  the  present 
Constitution:  the  portion  of  the  present  Constitution 
above  quoted  was  proposed  by  the  initiative  and  adopted 
by  the  referendum  in  November,  1912.  It  stands  as  by 
far  the  most  unique  constitutional  provision  in  the  United 
States  in  that  it  establishes  the  most  independent  status 
for  municipalities  to  be  found  anywhere  in  this  coun- 
try.169 

With  the  exception  of  Colorado  it  can  not  be  said  that 
legislative  interference  has  been  wholly  eliminated  by 
placing  the  home  rule  charter  system  upon  a  constitution- 
al basis.  Through  certain  limitations  above  mentioned 
the  legislatures  in  all  of  the  States  under  review  still  re- 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  93 

tain  large  control  of  the  home  rule  areas.  This  is  appar- 
ent from  the  illustrations  already  given.  And  yet  these 
limitations  are  not  the  only  limitations  upon  the  home 
rule  areas :  the  courts  have  played  a  conspicuous  part  in 
circumscribing  the  authority  of,  these  areas  —  acting  at 
all  times  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  American 
law  that  municipal  corporations  are  authorities  of  enum- 
erated powers.  Indeed,  they  "have  been  inclined  to  re- 
strain the  powers  of  local  self-government  to  their 
narrowest  limits.  In  Washington  and  Michigan  the  very 
life  of  the  amendments  were  sapped  by  court  interpreta- 
tions ".17°  Moreover,  the  courts  in  construing  the  pro- 
visions of  the  home  rule  charter  systems  have  as  a  rule 
followed  the  policy  of  strict  construction  which  has  pre- 
vailed in  this  country  from  the  very  early  days,  namely, 
that  all  questions  as  to  grants  of  power  to  municipal 
corporations  over  which  a  doubt  has  arisen  are  decided 
against  the  municipality.  And  so,  it  is  not  surprising  to 
Tind  the  Supreme  Court  of  Missouri  using  such  language 
as  the  following  in  its  construction  of  the  powers  of  the 
home  rule  areas : 

The  legislative  power  of  the  state  is  vested  in  a  senate  and  a 
house  of  representatives,  and  when  it  is  declared  that  any  city  of 
the  required  population  may  frame  and  adopt  a  charter  for  its 
own  government,  the  right  thus  granted,  and  the  charter  adopted, 
is  subject  to  legislative  control.  The  proposition  .... 
that,  when  any  such  city  has  adopted  a  charter,  it  is  out  of,  and 
beyond,  all  legislative  influence,  cannot  be  sustained.171 

Again,  one  finds  this  language  employed  by  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  California : 

In  all  matters  ....  which  may  affect  the  State  at 
large,  or  whenever  any  legislation  is,  in  its  [the  legislature's] 
judgment,  appropriate  for  all  parts  of  the  state,  it  possesses  all 


94  APPLIED  HISTORY 

the  legislative  power  of  the  state  that  has  not  been  specifically 
denied  to  it,  and  upon  whatever  subjects  its  power  to  pass  a 
general  law  exists,  such  general  law  must  be  the  controlling  rule 
of  action  in  all  parts  of  the  state,  and  over  all  its  citizens.172 

In  Ohio,  however,  the  Supreme  Court  has  taken  a 
much  broader  view  of  the  power  conferred  by  the  home 
rule  amendment  as  is  shown  by  the  following  language 
from  a  recent  decision  : 

The  very  idea  of  local  self-government,  the  generating  spirit 
which  caused  the  adoption  of  what  was  called  the  home  rule 
amendment  to  the  Constitution,  was  the  desire  of  the  people  to 
confer  upon  the  cities  of  the  state  the  authority  to  exercise 
.  .  .  .  powers  without  any  outside  interference.  .  .  . 
The  convention  which  framed  it  was  conscious  of  the  wide  scope 
of  the  powers  which  they  were  conferring  upon  the  cities  of  the 
state  with  reference  to  their  local  self-government  .... 
Not  alone  this,  but  in  connection  with  the  comprehensive  grant 
they  disclose  the  intention  to  confer  on  the  municipality  all  other 
powers  of  local  self-government  which  are  not  included  in  the 
limitations  specified  ....  general  law  passed  under  this 
constitutional  provision  must  yield  to  a  charter  provision  adopted 
by  a  municipality  under  a  special  constitutional  provision,  which 
special  provision  was  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the 
municipality  to  relieve  itself  of  the  operation  of  general  statutes 
and  adopt  a  method  of  its  own  to  assist  in  its  own  self-govern- 
ment, and  which  charter  when  adopted  has  the  force  and  effect  of 
law  ....  The  provisions  of  a  charter  which  is  passed 
within  the  limits  of  the  constitutional  grant  of  authority  to  the 
city  is  as  much  the  law  as  a  statute  passed  by  the  General  As- 
sembly.173 

As  far  as  the  principles  of  American  law  are  con- 
cerned it  can  be  said,  then,  that  a  home  rule  charter  can 
not  deal  with  other  than  local  affairs,  that  the  authority 
to  frame  a  charter  is  limited  by  the  restrictions  found 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA 


95 


elsewhere  in  the  Constitution,  and  that  the  general  laws 
of  the  State  passed  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution 
are  supreme.  Thus,  all  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitu- 
tions in  home  rule  States  limiting  taxation,  indebtedness, 
and  the  borrowing  power  apply  to  the  home  rule  cities, 
unless  the  Constitution  expressly  exempts  them. 

Even  these  are  not  all  of  the  limitations  on  the  local 
areas:  some  State  constitutions  definitely  prescribe  the 
main  features  of  the  local  government.  For  example,  in 
Missouri  every  city  must  have  a  mayor  and  a  bicameral 
legislature;  while  the  Minnesota  Constitution  requires  a 
mayor  and  either  a  bicameral  or  a  unicameral  legislature. 
The  enabling  act  of  Michigan  enumerates  eighteen  items 
that  must  go  into  every  charter  —  among  which  is  the 
provision  for  a  mayor.  This  same  act  then  specifies 
twenty-one  permissive  features  and  nine  general  prohibi- 
tions. The  following  sections  from  the  county  home  rule 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  California  are  a  good 
illustration  of  the  limitations  under  consideration : 

It  shall  be  competent,  in  all  charters,  framed  under  the  au- 
thority given  by  this  section  to  provide,  in  addition  to  any  other 
provisions  allowable  by  this  Constitution,  and  the  same  shall 
provide,  for  the  following  matters : 

1.  For  Boards  of  Supervisors  and  for  the  constitution,  regu- 
lation and  government  thereof,  for  the  times  at  which  and  the 
terms  for  which  the  members  of  said  board  shall  be  elected,  for 
the  number  of  members,  not  less  than  three,  that  shall  constitute 
such  boards,  for  their  compensation  and  for  their  election,  either 
by  the  electors  of  the  counties  at  large  or  by  districts ;  provided, 
that  in  any  event  said  board  shall  consist  of  one  member  for  each 
district,  who  must  be  a  qualified  elector  thereof ;  and 

2.  For  Sheriffs,  County  Clerks,  Treasurers,  Recorders,  Li- 
cense Collectors,  Tax  Collectors,  Public  Administrators,   Coro- 
ners,  Surveyors,   District  Attorneys,   Auditors,   Assessors   and 


96  APPLIED  HISTORY 

Superintendents  of  Schools,  for  the  election  or  appointment  of 
said  officers,  or  any  of  them,  for  the  times  at  which  and  the  terms 
for  which,  said  officers  shall  be  elected  or  appointed,  and  for  their 
compensation,  or  for  the  fixing,  of  such  compensation  by  Boards 
of  Supervisors,  and,  if  appointed,  for  the  manner  of  their  ap- 
pointment ;  and 

3.  For  the  number  of  Justices  of  the  Peace  and  Constables 
for  each  township,  or  for  the  number  of  such  Judges  and  other  of- 
ficers of  such  inferior  courts  as  may  be  provided  by  the  Constitu- 
tion or  general  law,  for  the  election  or  appointment  of  said 
officers,  for  the  times  at  which  and  the  terms  for  which  said  of- 
ficers shall  be  elected  or  appointed,  and  for  their  compensation, 
or  for  the  fixing  of  such  compensation  by  Boards  of  Supervisors, 
and  if  appointed,  for  the  manner  of  their  appointment ;  and 

4.  For  the  powers  and  duties  of  Boards  of  Supervisors  and 
all  other  county  officers,  for  their  removal  and  for  the  consolida- 
tion and  segregation  of  county  offices,  and  for  the  manner  of 
filling  all  vacancies  occurring  therein;  provided,  that  the  pro- 
visions of  such  charters  relating  to  the  powers  and  duties  of 
Boards  of  Supervisors  and  all  other  county  officers  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  and  controlled  by  general  laws ;  and 

5.  For  the  fixing  and  regulation  by  Boards  of  Supervisors, 
by  ordinance,  of  the  appointment  and  number  of  assistants,  dep- 
uties, clerks,  attaches,  and  other  persons  to  be  employed,  from 
time  to  time,  in  the  several  offices  of  the  county,  and  for  the  pre- 
scribing and  regulating  by  such  boards  of  the  powers,  duties, 
qualifications  and  compensation  of  such  persons,  the  times  at 
which  and  the  terms  for  which  they  shall  be  appointed,  and  the 
manner  of  their  appointment  and  removal ;  and 

6.  For  the  compensation  of  such  fish  and  game  wardens, 
probation  and  other  officers  as  may  be  provided  by  general  law, 
or  for  the  fixing  of  such  compensation  by  Boards  of  Supervisors. 

All  elective  officers  of  counties,  and  of  townships,  of  road  dis- 
tricts and  of  highway  construction  divisions  therein  shall  be 
nominated  and  elected  in  the  manner  provided  by  general  laws 
for  the  nomination  and  election  of  such  officers.174 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA 


97 


The  various  limitations  upon  the  powers  of  the  local 
areas  operating  under  home-made  charters  and  the  re- 
strictions upon  the  authority  of  the  people  within  these 
local  areas  to  frame  their  own  charters  show  to  what 
extent  the  home  rule  charter  system  has  not  accomplished 
real  home  rule.  To  be  sure  certain  limitations  and  re- 
strictions are  necessary  in  order  to  preserve  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  State,  but  the  home  rule  charter  system, 
itself,  has  failed  to  draw  a  definite  line  between  State  and 
local  functions.  To  this  fact  may  be  attributed  most  of 
its  failures  and  disappointments. 


VIII 
STATE  AND  LOCAL  FUNCTIONS175 

IN  the  preceding  pages  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  trace 
briefly  the  development  of  home  rule  as  a  factor  in  local 
government,  to  indicate  the  present  position  of  the  local 
areas  in  Iowa  and  the  resulting  evils  of  special  legisla- 
tion, to  point  out  the  necessity  and  effects  of  classifi- 
cation, to  show  the  impracticability  of  rigid  uniformity 
in  the  government  of  local  areas,  and  to  present  the  home 
rule  charter  system  in  the  light  of  its  successes  and  short- 
comings. The  problem  of  classifying  State  and  local 
functions  may  now  be  discussed  to  some  purpose. 

THE  EEAL  PROBLEM  OF  HOME  EULE 

Indeed,  the  division  of  State  and  local  functions  is  the 
real  problem  of  home  rule  in  its  modern  aspect.  What 
are  the  State  functions?  What  are  the  local  functions? 
To  answer  these  questions  is  no  simple  problem:  the 
solution  of  the  difficulty  can  not  be  had  for  the  asking. 
In  fact  this  problem  lies  at  the  basis  of  State  administra- 
tion; and  its  solution  involves  the  whole  problem  of  the 
reorganization  of  State  government.  At  the  same  time 
some  general  propositions  can  be  presented  which  will  aid 
in  at  least  a  preliminary  classification  of  State  and  local 
functions.  In  the  first  place  there  must  be  a  constitu- 
tional delimitation  of  the  sphere  of  State  and  local  activ- 
ity. But  how  should  this  be  done?  To  what  extent 
should  the  city,  the  county,  the  township,  and  the  school 

98 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  99 

district  be  allowed  to  rule  themselves!  And  how  can  the 
line  be  drawn  so  that  State  interference  can  be  detected 
and  avoided  ?  On  the  other  hand,  what  method  should  be 
used  in  mapping  out  a  domain  of  activity  for  the  State? 
In  what  way  can  this  be  accomplished  so  that  it  will  be 
apparent  when  the  local  area  is  acting  as  an  agent  of  the 
State  and  when  it  is  acting  as  an  area  for  the  satisfaction 
of  local  needs,  thereby  making  impossible  any  objection 
to  State  supervision? 

Answering  these  questions  in  a  practical  way,  rather 
than  according  to  any  theory,  the  constitutional  delimita- 
tion of  spheres  of  activities  may  be  accomplished  by  al- 
lowing the  State  to  exercise  those  functions  which  as 
near  as  can  be  determined  pertain  to  it  as  a  State,  and  at 
the  same  time  permitting  the  local  areas  to  carry  on  those 
functions  which  it  is  apparent  belong  to  the  locality.  The 
result  at  first  will  be  unsatisfactory,  but  in  time  definite 
and  more  or  less  well-marked  fields  will  be  established 
for  the  activities  of  the  State  and  the  local  political  cor- 
porations. 

That  such  a  method  is  practicable  is  abundantly 
shown  by  the  adjustment  of  functions  that  has  taken 
place  between  the  States  and  the  Federal  government. 
Here  the  division  was  at  first  very  roughly  outlined,  but 
time  has  established  a  fairly  definite  field  of  activity  for 
both  the  State  and  the  Nation.  Moreover,  in  a  govern- 
ment like  ours,  there  must  always  be  a  shifting  of  func- 
tion between  the  States  and  Federal  government :  under 
changing  conditions  of  life,  State  functions  must  in- 
evitably become  Federal  functions.  And  so,  in  local  gov- 
ernment economic  and  social  developments  will  bring 
about  changes  in  the  division  of  State  and  local  function 
—  a  fact  which  must  be  taken  into  account  in  making  any 


100  APPLIED  HISTORY 

classification  of  State  and  local  activities,  'in  this  con- 
nection the  following  statement  made  by  Justice  Wana- 
maker  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio,  in  the  case  of 
Fitzgerald  vs.  City  of  Cleveland,  is  directly  in  point  and 
carries  conviction: 

In  every  municipality  there  are  three  kinds  of  governmental 
power  now  being  exercised :  Federal,  State,  and  municipal.  The 
federal  power  of  the  nation  is  and  of  right  ought  to  be  supreme 
in  its  own  proper  jurisdiction.  The  state  power  of  the  state  is 
and  of  right  ought  to  be  supreme  in  its  own  proper  jurisdiction. 
Why  should  not  the  municipal  power  of  the  municipality  be  sub- 
stantially supreme  in  its  own  proper  jurisdiction?  .  .  .  . 
These  powers  are  usually  clearly  distinguishable.  At  times,  of 
course,  between  the  state  and  the  nation,  as  it  is  between  the  city 
and  the  state,  there  may  be  a  twilight  zone  where  it  is  difficult  to 
distinguish  into  which  class  the  governmental  power  falls. 
Nevertheless  there  is  abundant  reason  and  authority  for  such 
inherent  distinction.  The  federal  power  with  its  limitations  was 
put  in  the  federal  charter,  to  wit,  the  national  Constitution.  The 
state  power  with  its  limitations  in  the  federal  charter  and  state 
charter  was  put  into  the  state  Constitution.  The  municipal 
power  is  now  to  be  put  into  a  municipal  charter,  which  is  to  be 
the  Constitution  of  the  city,  limited  only  by  its  own  provisions 
and  by  the  state  and  federal  charters  or  Constitutions.176 

With  these  three  fundamental  propositions  to  guide 
the  way  —  first,  that  there  must  be  a  definite  demarcation 
between  State  and  local  activity;  second,  that  the  State  in 
a  general  way  should  discharge  those  functions  which 
naturally  pertain  to  it  and  the  local  areas  should  do  like- 
wise; and  third,  that  no  division  of  functions  can  be 
permanent  because  of  changing  social  and  economic  con- 
ditions —  it  is  possible  to  make  a  rough  classification  of 
the  functions  which  may  properly  be  performed  by  the 
State  and  by  the  local  areas. 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  101 

THE  STATE  FUNCTIONS 

In  the  first  place  there  are  certain  well  established 
functions  which  to-day  are  clearly  within  the  field  of 
State  government  —  activities  in  respect  to  which  not 
even  the  most  ardent  supporter  of  home  rule  would  advo- 
cate the  limiting  of  State  power.  For  example,  the  gen- 
eral police  power  of  the  State  must  be  exercised  by  the 
State  government.  This  is  not  disputed.  It  is  true  that 
the  local  areas  may  be  given  authority  to  exercise  this 
power  in  regard  to  health  and  safety ;  but  local  regulation 
in  police  matters  must  always  be  subordinate  to  State 
laws. 

Again,  the  power  of  taxation  for  State  purposes  is  of 
course  a  State  function,  but  certain  local  areas  are  natu- 
rally best  fitted  for  the  collection  of  these  taxes  and 
should  be  used  by  the  State  for  that  purpose.  Moreover, 
even  when  the  Constitution  provides  for  the  segregation 
of  the  sources  of  income  for  State  and  local  purposes,  as 
it  does  in  some  of  the  States,  the  State  can  not  surrender 
its  power  of  general  supervision  over  local  taxation.  For 
if  the  contrary  principles  were  admitted  the  various  po- 
litical corporations  of  the  State  would  be  able  to  tax 
themselves  so  heavily  that  the  State  could  not  collect 
taxes  for  State  purposes. 

Likewise  the  indebtedness  of  political  subdivisions  of 
the  State  must  be  under  central  regulation:  unless  such 
was  the  case  a  local  area  might  become  so  indebted  as  to 
render  it  useless  as  a  field  of  revenue  for  the  general  pur- 
poses of  the  State.  And  if  one  of  the  local  areas  could 
create  a  situation  of  this  kind,  all  of  them  might  do  the 
same  and  thus  make  the  existence  of  the  State  impossible. 
This  principle  has  long  been  recognized  in  American  law, 
and  constitutional  limitations  upon  the  power  of  political 


102  APPLIED  HISTORY 

corporations  to  incur  indebtedness  are  common  through- 
out the  United  States.  For  these  same  reasons  the  State 
should  retain  for  itself  the  power  to  require  a  uniform 
system  of  accounts  for  the  local  areas  —  as  has  recently 
been  done  in  Iowa  —  with  the  right  at  all  times  to  inspect 
the  workings  of  the  system. 

Another  State  function,  which  will  not  be  questioned, 
is  the  control  of  education.  If  space  permitted  it  could 
easily  be  shown  that  education  in  Iowa  in  early  times  was 
not  even  a  governmental  function :  on  the  contrary  it  was 
a  purely  private  matter.  Later  it  became  a  function  of 
the  local  areas ;  and  to-day,  without  doubt,  it  has  come  to 
be  regarded  as  a  function  which  concerns  the  State  as  a 
whole.  Thus  the  State  should  establish  a  public  school 
system  and  assure  itself  of  the  efficiency  of  that  system 
by  State  inspection.  Even  under  such  an  arrangement 
large  control  in  school  affairs  can  be  left  in  the  hands  of 
the  school  district. 

In  addition,  the  State  must  retain  for  itself  the  regu- 
lation and  management  of  general  elections,  that  is,  the 
elections  at  which  State  officials  are  chosen  —  although 
it  may  well  give  to  the  local  area  the  right  to  regulate  and 
control  the  selection  of  local  officers,  as  has  been  done  in 
Colorado. 

These  are  some  of  the  well  established  and  little  ques- 
tioned State  functions.  It  is  as  unnecessary  as  it  is 
impracticable  to  enumerate  all  of  the  activities  of  gov- 
ernment in  the  American  Commonwealth.  To  the  police 
power,  State  taxation,  education,  and  the  control  of  gen- 
eral elections,  however,  the  following  may  be  added  as 
purely  State  functions :  the  establishment  of  charities  and 
corrections ;  the  administration  of  justice ;  the  protection 
of  the  rights  of  property;  the  definition  of  crimes  and 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA 


103 


their  punishment ;  the  care  of  criminals ;  the  creation  of  a 
system  of  domestic  relations  (marriage  and  divorce) ;  the 
maintenance  of  highways;  the  regulation  of  public  utili- 
ties ;  and  the  control  of  trade  and  commerce. 

THE  LOCAL  FUNCTIONS 

Of  local  functions  there  are"  many ;  but  since  they  vary 
according  to  the  conditions  of  the  local  community  they 
are  even  more  difficult  to  classify  than  the  State  func- 
tions. By  writers  on  American  government  local  func- 
tions have  commonly  been  thrown  into  one  group  — 
public  improvements.  Within  the  sphere  of  public  im- 
provements are  classed  the  following :  street  paving  and 
surfacing;  the  building  of  bridges,  viaducts,  and  under- 
ground roads;  the  construction  of  sewers  and  sewage 
disposal  plants;  scavenging;  the  maintenance  of  public 
baths,  parks,  and  playgrounds;  the  providing  of  water, 
light,  heat,  and  the  means  of  transportation;  the  estab- 
lishment of  ferries,  docks,  piers,  and  harbors;  the  crea- 
tion of  public  markets  and  abattoirs ;  and  the  erection  of 
libraries  and  museums.  Such  are  some  of  the  well  recog- 
nized local  functions.  Now  the  geographical  conditions 
of  the  local  area ;  its  industrial  and  commercial  develop- 
ment ;  its  status,  whether  it  is  a  city,  a  town,  a  county,  a 
school  district  or  a  township  —  that  is  to  say,  the  kind  of 
a  political  corporation  that  it  is,  whether  it  is  a  quasi- 
corporation  or  a  municipal  corporation  —  will  largely 
determine  the  local  functions  within  that  particular  area. 
Thus  there  arises  a  new  problem  —  the  problem  of  di- 
viding the  local  functions  among  the  local  areas./ 

At  the  outset  it  is  evident  that  municipal  corporations, 
that  is,  the  voluntary  political  corporations,  will  have 
more  local  functions  to  perform  than  the  quasi  or  invol- 


104  APPLIED  HISTORY 

untary  political  corporations.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  county  and  the  township  exist  primarily  as  adminis- 
trative agents  of  the  State,  and  secondarily  for  the  pur- 
poses of  local  government;  while  the  city  and  the  town 
exist  in  the  first  instance  for  the  purposes  of  local  govern- 
ment, and  in  the  second  instance  as  administrative  agents 
of  the  State.  Consequently,  in  discussing  the  apportion- 
ment of  the  local  functions  among  the  different  local 
areas  one  must  have  definitely  in  mind  the  conditions  in 
a  particular  State  and  the  administrative  system  of  that 
State. 

This  much,  however,  can  be  said  in  regard  to  the  cities 
and  towns  in  all  of  the  States,  that  in  addition  to  the 
functions  already  indicated  they  should  have,  under  the 
proper  conditions,  the  power  to  provide  for  municipal 
police,  protection  against  fire,  the  inspection  of  foods  and 
offensive  trades,  the  control  and  management  of  infec- 
tious diseases  —  discovery,  isolation,  and  disinfection, 
the  requirement  of  vaccination  and  quarantine  —  and  the 
maintaining  of  employment  bureaus  and  allotments.  In 
the  larger  cities  of  the  country  the  following  functions 
should  also  be  considered  as  proper  for  the  governments 
of  such  congested  centers:  the  establishment  of  public 
loan  offices  and  savings  banks;  the  maintenance  of  tech- 
nical schools,  academies,  and  colleges;  the  creation  of  a 
poor  relief  system  and  the  control  of  private  charities; 
the  erection  of  hospitals  and  other  similar  public  im- 
provements. 

Many  of  these  local  functions  would  simply  supple- 
ment the  State's  activity  or  be  viewed  as  concurrent 
powers.  The  suggestion  of  these  functions  and  condi- 
tions will  bring  to  the  reader's  mind  the  important  fact 
that  the  local  activities  of  a  particular  area  will  depend 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  105 

not  only  upon  the  status  of  that  area  but  also  upon  its 
character  and  nature  —  its  peoples  and  their  habits  of 
life,  together  with  its  industrial  and  commercial  activ- 
ities. 

THE  PEOBLEM  SUMMAEIZED 

The  whole  problem  of  State  and  local  functions  may 
now  be  summarized.  The  general  legislative  authority 
of  the  State,  that  is,  the  policy-determining  authority 
must  be  left  in  the  hands  of  the  State :  the  State  legisla- 
ture must  have  the  complete  authority  to  determine  the 
general  State  policies  and  to  enact  laws  providing  for  the 
execution  of  the  same.  Moreover,  in  the  administration 
of  these  policies,  the  State  executive  and  administrative 
departments  must  have  complete  control;  and  for  the 
purposes  of  efficient  government  there  should  be  central- 
ization in  the  administration  of  State  functions.  In  fact 
centralization  in  administration  would  become  a  simple 
matter  if  there  was  a  proper  separation  of  State  and 
local  functions.  No  one  could  object  to  the  centralization 
of  the  State's  administration  —  which  in  itself  would 
make  possible  the  elimination  of  diversity  in  administra- 
tion and  bring  about  a  higher  degree  of  efficiency.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  determining  of  local  policies  should  be 
conferred  upon  the  local  areas.  And  likewise  the  execu- 
tion of  these  policies  should  be  left  in  the  hands  of  the 
political  subdivisions  of  the  State.  In  this  way  State 
administration  and  local  administration  would  become 
distinct. 

The  grant  of  power,  moreover,  must  be  in  general 
terms,  for  the  State  Constitution  can  not  enumerate  all 
the  subjects  of  State  legislation :  it  ought  not  to  attempt 
to  enumerate  all  the  powers  of  the  local  areas.  There 


106  APPLIED  HISTORY 

should  be  a  general  grant  of  power  to  the  State,  and  simi- 
larly there  should  be  a  general  grant  to  the  subdivisions 
of  the  State.  Such  a  division  of  power  would  roughly 
create  a  field  of  activity  for  both  the  State  and  the  local 
areas.  The  exact  line  of  demarcation  would  be  worked 
out  by  a  process  of  gradual  adaptation,  in  which  the 
courts  would  have  an  important  role. 

THE  HOME  EULE  CHAETEB  SYSTEM  AND  THE  DIVISION  OF 
FUNCTIONS 

The  home  rule  charter  system  is  not  a  reform  which 
will  correct  the  many  defects  of  State  and  local  govern- 
ment :  home-made  charters  are  but  one  factor  in  a  larger 
movement  for  the  reorganization  of  government  in  the 
American  Commonwealth.  (For  a  discussion  of  the 
problem  of  reorganization,  see  Dr.  Horack's  paper  on 
The  Reorganisation  of  State  Government  in  Iowa  which 
appears  in  this  series.)  Moreover,  the  home  rule  charter 
system  can  not  accomplish  any  great  reform  until  a  def- 
inite field  for  local  activities  is  defined  by  the  State  Con- 
stitution. Such  constitutional  delimitation  has  in  a  way 
been  accomplished  in  Missouri,  California,  Ohio,  and 
Colorado ;  but  in  the  newer  systems  much  of  the  possible 
development  remains  with  the  courts.  Nor  have  the 
home  rule  charter  systems  been  established  in  the  past 
with  the  idea  of  accomplishing  a  comprehensive  reform 
in  local  government :  they  have  usually  been  adopted  with 
a  view  to  relieving  the  larger  cities  from  the  interference 
of  the  State  legislature.  And  it  has  transpired  that  in 
some  of  the  States  the  larger  cities  have  found  it  advan- 
tageous, in  their  fight  for  municipal  freedom,  to  stand  for 
the  grant  of  the  charter-making  power  to  the  smaller 
cities  as  well. 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA 


107 


Thus  the  home  rule  charter  system  of  local  govern- 
ment has  been  grafted  on  the  old  political  tree.  The 
movement  did  not  start  at  the  bottom  by  giving  the  local 
areas  a  definite  constitutional  status :  it  has  not  been  con- 
cerned with  the  scientific  division  of  State  and  local  func- 
tions. Moreover,  the  grant  of  power  under  the  new  sys- 
tem has  been  more  or  less  haphazard  —  except  in  one  or 
two  of  the  States  where  experience  has  led  to  a  somewhat 
definite  distinction  between  State  and  local  functions. 
To  be  sure,  the  laws  in  nearly  all  of  these  States  say 
something  about  municipal  or  local  affairs ;  but  few  have 
been  successful  in  keeping  the  courts  from  deciding 
against  the  power  of  the  municipality.  As  a  result  the 
possibilities  of  the  home  rule  charter  system  under  the 
present  conditions  are  limited. 

THE  DIVISION  OF  GOVERNMENTAL  FUNCTIONS  IN  IOWA 

The  general  principles  already  laid  down  apply  as 
well  to  Iowa  as  to  any  other  State,  but  there  are  certain 
local  conditions  in  this  State  which  are  of  special  interest 
in  connection  with  a  discussion  of  State  and  local  func- 
tions. Iowa  has  no  large  cities:  it  is  primarily  a  rural 
Commonwealth.  According  to  the  census  of  1910  there 
are  in  the  State  2,224,771  persons  — 1,118,769  of  whom 
live  in  municipal  corporations,  that  is,  in  the  cities  and 
towns.  These  local  areas  are  classified  for  the  purpose  of 
legislation  into  (1)  cities  of  the  first  class,  (2)  cities  of 
the  second  class,  (3)  towns,  (4)  special  charter  cities,  and 
(5)  commission  governed  cities.  At  the  present  time 
there  are  three  cities  of  the  first  class,  one  hundred  and 
five  cities  of  the  second  class,  seven  hundred  and  twenty- 
eight  towns,  five  special  charter  cities,  and  eight  commis- 
sion governed  cities.  Furthermore,  there  are  ninety-nine 


108  APPLIED  HISTORY 

counties,  one  thousand  six  hundred  and  sixty-five  town- 
ships, and  five  thousand  and  fourteen  school  corporations 
in  the  State.  Now  then,  the  problem  of  home  rule  in  Iowa 
is  the  problem  of  determining  the  functions  which  each  of 
these  local  areas  should  discharge.177 

The  functions  of  the  township  and  the  school  district 
can  be  easily  disposed  of  at  the  outset.  Since  education 
has  become  unquestionably  a  State  function,  the  school 
corporation  must  exist  almost,  if  not  entirely,  for  the 
State  administration  of  the  educational  system.  There 
may  be  some  few  local  functions  discharged  by  this  polit- 
ical corporation,  but  whatever  they  may  be,  they  ought 
undoubtedly  to  be  discharged  under  State  supervision. 
A  charter  system  for  the  school  corporations  in  this  State 
would  seem  to  be  untenable.  Moreover,  a  constitutional 
status  for  these  areas  seems  even  more  questionable.  In- 
deed, the  status  of  these  areas  should  depend  largely,  if 
not  completely,  upon  legislative  action. 

Nor  is  the  home  rule  charter  system  adapted  to  the 
government  of  the  township.  Indeed,  the  abolition  of  the 
township  in  this  State  might  be  advisable,  since  it  may 
without  violence  be  viewed  as  a  subdivision  of  the  county 
rather  than  as  a  subdivision  of  the  State.  Under  the 
California  home  rule  county  system  the  problem  of  town- 
ship government  (with  the  exception  of  the  justice  of  the 
peace  court)  is  placed  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  county. 
It  is  perhaps  true  that  some  system  of  minor  courts  for 
the  administration  of  justice  should  be  maintained  in 
Iowa;  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  township  organization 
should  be  preserved  merely  for  that  purpose,  as  has  been 
done  in  California.  As  far  as  local  government  is  con- 
cerned it  is  evident  that  the  township  has  outgrown  its 
usefulness  as  an  agency  for  the  discharge  of  local  func- 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  109 

tions.  It  is,  also,  reasonable  to  presume  that  for  the 
administration  of  justice  the  State  could  establish  a  bet- 
ter system  than  is  afforded  by  the  present  justice  of  the 
peace  courts.  In  short,  the  problem  of  functions  in  town- 
ship and  school  district  affairs  does  not  seriously  concern 
the  study  of  home  rule  in  Iowa.  The  county  and  munici- 
pality are  the  only  important  and  vital  areas  in  this 
connection. 

That  county  government  in  Iowa  has  been  unsatis- 
factory calls  for  no  special  proof :  the  fact  is  evident  even 
to  the  most  casual  student  of  local  conditions  in  this  State. 
Moreover,  it  is  altogether  plausible  that  this  situation  is 
largely  due  to  the  confusion  resulting  from  the  dual  char- 
acter of  the  county.  Very  little  attention  has  been  given 
to  the  distinction  between  State  functions  discharged  by 
the  county  and  local  functions  performed  by  that  same 
area.  As  a  result  there  has  often  been  insistence  upon 
the  local  control  of  the  State  activities  —  which  has  been 
largely  responsible  for  the  development  of  a  decentral- 
ized administrative  system.  To  get  away  from  this  situ- 
ation the  home  rule  charter  system,  with  a  constitutional 
delimitation  of  the  fields  of  State  and  local  action,  seems 
advisable  both  for  the  counties  and  for  the  municipalities. 

The  carrying  out  of  such  a  program  would  result  in 
several  fundamental  changes  in  the  present  system  of 
local  government.  In  the  first  place,  the  authority  of  the 
government  of  the  local  areas  —  the  county  and  the  city 
—  would  come  direct  from  the  people :  the  grant  would  be 
made  through  the  charter  under  the  provisions  of  the 
State  Constitution  instead  of  by  the  legislature ;  and,  by 
constitutional  amendment,  powers  could  be  added  to  or 
taken  away  from  the  local  government.  At  the  present 
time  the  local  areas  of  this  State  have  no  real  constitu- 


110  APPLIED  HISTORY 

tional  status  —  the  city  and  the  county  are  mere  creatures 
of  the  legislature.  In  the  second  place,  the  constitutional 
grant  of  power  to  these  areas  would  be  like  the  grant  of 
power  in  European  countries,  where  cities  are  given  all 
the  powers  not  specifically  denied  them.  In  Iowa  the  city 
and  the  county  can  exercise  only  those  powers  which  have 
been  expressly  conferred.  According  to  the  European 
practice  the  presumption  in  regard  to  power  is  in  favor 
of  the  city;  while  in  Iowa  the  presumption  is  against  the 
local  area.  By  the  home  rule  charter  program  supported 
by  constitutional  delimitation  of  fields  of  action  some  ef- 
fective reform  in  both  State  and  local  government  could 
be  hoped  for. 

The  proposition  of  a  home  rule  system  for  Iowa  comes 
to  this :  if  the  people  living  in  the  counties  and  munici- 
palities of  this  State  are  competent  to  participate  in  the 
general  government  of  the  State  as  well  as  in  the  affairs 
of  the  National  government;  if  this  is  a  government  of 
the  people,  for  the  people,  and  by  the  people;  then  the 
people  of  these  local  areas  are  and  by  right  ought  to  be 
able  to  carry  on  local  government  without  State  inter- 
ference, without  special  legislation,  without  classification, 
without  the  disadvantages  of  uniformity  and  the  other 
wornout  practices  of  the  present  system.  If  self-govern- 
ment has  any  place  in  modern  government  its  existence 
ought  to  be  justified  in  the  counties  and  municipalities  of 
this  State. 


IX 

SUGGESTIONS  FOR  HOME  RULE  REFORM  IN 

IOWA 

THE  foregoing  analysis  and  survey  of  the  home  rule 
charter  system  suggests  certain  conclusions  as  to  what 
should  be  included  in  a  home  rule  program  for  a  partic- 
ular State.  Thus,  if  Iowa  is  to  follow  the  more  progres- 
sive States  in  local  government  reform  and  establish  a 
home  rule  system  the  following  fundamental  features 
should  be  included : 

First.  The  Constitution  of  the  State  should  set  out 
two  distinct  fields  of  action  —  one  for  the  State  and  the 
other  for  the  locality.  Moreover,  the  grant  of  authority 
should  be  in  general  terms:  for  the  organic  law  of  the 
State  ought  not  to  attempt  to  enumerate  all  the  functions 
of  government.  Indeed,  the  actual  line  of  demarcation 
between  State  and  local  functions  must  be  left  to  the 
growing  experience  of  the  Commonwealth;  and  the  line 
will  necessarily  be  a  fluctuating  line.  Furthermore,  the 
constitutional  law  of  the  State  ought  not  to  prescribe  the 
details  of  the  home  rule  system.  These  should  be  left  to 
legislative  action;  but  the  terms  of  the  Constitution 
should  be  mandatory  upon  the  General  Assembly  in  re- 
gard to  such  legislation.  To  provide  for  a  complete  sys- 
tem of  home  rule  in  a  Constitution  would  make  that 
instrument  too  cumbersome.  Moreover,  since  many  of 
the  details  must  be  left  to  statutory  enactment,  the  organ- 
ic law  should  place  certain  limitations  upon  the  power  of 

111 


112  APPLIED  HISTORY 

the  court  in  construing  the  home  rule  legislation  enacted 
in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution. 

Second.  All  the  counties  and  incorporated  munici- 
palities of  the  State  should  be  given  the  authority  to 
frame  their  own  charters.  In  fact  the  law  should  antici- 
pate the  adoption  of  this  form  of  local  government  by  all 
of  these  local  areas.  Because  of  local  conditions,  the 
adoption  of  charters  generally  would  take  a  long  time; 
but  there  is  no  reason  why  self-government  should  not  be 
as  interesting  to  the  citizens  of  the  numerous  small  towns 
and  counties  of  the  State  as  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  more 
congested  centers.  By  leaving  the  school  corporation 
under  the  control  of  the  State  legislature,  since  education 
is  now  a  State  function,  and  by  placing  the  township 
under  the  care  of  the  county,  as  has  been  done  in  Cali- 
fornia, no  confusion  need  arise  in  the  discharge  of  State 
and  local  functions  in  these  areas  —  an  evil  which  every 
home  rule  program  should  attempt  to  correct. 

Third.  The  legislative  authority  of  the  city  or  county 
should  be  given  power  to  submit  the  question  of  a  charter 
convention  to  the  people  at  its  discretion;  and  it  should 
be  compelled  to  submit  such  a  question  upon  the  filing  of 
an  initiative  petition  with  the  clerk  of  the  local  area.  In 
either  case  a  majority  vote  of  the  people  should  deter- 
mine the  feasibility  of  holding  a  convention  for  the  pur- 
pose of  framing  a  charter  for  the  local  area.  The  charter 
convention  seems  preferable  to  the  Oregon  plan  of  pro- 
posing charters  by  use  of  the  initiative  petition. 

Fourth.  The  charter  convention  should  consist  of 
delegates  elected  by  the  people  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
drafting  a  charter.  If  the  charter  is  rejected  a  new  con- 
vention should  be  held  by  the  selection  of  new  delegates. 
The  number  of  members  on  the  charter  board  —  that  is, 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  113 

the  number  of  members  elected  to  the  charter  convention 
-might  well  depend  upon  the  population  in  the  partic- 
ular area.  Large  boards,  however,  should  under  all  cir- 
cumstances be  avoided.  Moreover,  there  should  be  few 
qualifications  for  membership  in  the  convention:  that 
delegates  should  be  qualified  electors  seems  sufficient. 
Furthermore,  any  convention  scheme  should  place  a  limit 
upon  the  time  consumed  in  the  drafting  of  a  charter. 
Past  experience  has  shown  that  there  has  been  a  tendency 
to  place  too  short  a  limit  upon  the  time  of  the  charter 
board ;  and  yet,  great  care  must  be  exercised  in  not  plac- 
ing too  long  a  limit  upon  the  time  of  the  convention. 
Three  or  four  months  would  seem  to  be  a  reasonable 
length  of  time.  In  addition  to  these  requirements  the 
organization  of  the  convention  should  be  largely  provided 
for  by  statutory  enactment,  as  has  been  done  in  Michigan. 
These  laws  should  provide  for  the  expenses  of  the  con- 
vention, the  rules  of  procedure,  and  other  routine  mat- 
ters. 

Fifth.  Publication  of  the  charter  should  take  place  as 
soon  as  practicable  after  its  completion.  In  fixing  the 
time  of  publication,  the  date  of  submission  should  be 
taken  into  consideration  —  publication  should  not  take 
place  too  far  from  nor  too  near  to  the  actual  referendum 
by  the  people.  Not  more  than  four  or  less  than  two  weeks 
before  the  election  would  seem  to  be  about  the  proper 
interval  in  which  publication  should  be  required.  The 
best  method  of  publishing  a  proposed  charter  is  by  mail- 
ing a  copy  thereof  to  each  individual  voter.  The  Oregon 
plan  of  publishing  the  drafted  charter  in  an  information 
pamphlet,  together  with  arguments  for  and  against  its 
adoption,  seems  desirable. 

Sixth.     The  charter  should  be   submitted  within  a 

8 


114  APPLIED  HISTORY 

reasonable  time  after  its  completion.  Eegular  elections 
should  be  taken  advantage  of  whenever  practicable ;  but 
the  vote  of  the  people  on  the  charter  should  not  be  delayed 
too  long  merely  to  avoid  the  expense  of  a  special  election. 
It  is  suggested  that  the  law  should  provide  for  submission 
to  the  people  in  not  less  than  thirty  or  more  than  forty 
days  after  the  charter  convention  finishes  its  work. 

Seventh.  For  ratification  a  simple  majority  of  those 
voting  upon  the  charter  seems  sufficient :  there  is  no  spe- 
cial reason  for  providing  for  unusual  majorities  for  rati- 
fication as  has  been  done  in  Missouri  and  Minnesota. 
The  pros  and  cons  of  the  proposition  that  those  who  do 
not  vote  at  an  election  are  deemed  to  concur  in  the 
opinion  of  the  majority  as  expressed  by  the  ballots  ought 
not  to  enter  into  the  question  of  the  machinery  necessary 
for  the  operation  of  a  home  rule  charter  system.  That 
proposition  involves  the  whole  problem  of  election  re- 
form :  it  is  beside  the  point  in  this  connection.  The  legis- 
lation should  be  clear  concerning  this  matter;  and  an 
effort  should  be  made  to  avoid  the  confusion  which  has 
grown  up  over  the  judicial  distinction  between  ' l  thereat ' ' 
and  "  thereon  ". 

Eighth.  No  vetoes  or  quasi-vetoes  upon  charters  need 
be  provided.  If  a  charter  is  unconstitutional  or  illegal, 
that  should  be  left  to  the  determination  of  the  courts. 
The  interpretation  of  State  and  Federal  powers  has  been 
left  to  the  judiciary,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  they 
would  not  be  as  competent  in  construing  local  powers. 

Ninth.  Provision  should  be  made  for  charter  amend- 
ments, so  that  the  organic  law  of  the  local  area  can  be 
adjusted  from  time  to  time  to  changing  conditions.  The 
legislative  body  should  have  the  power  to  propose  amend- 
ments ;  and  the  people  should  also  have  this  authority  by 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  115 

use  of  the  initiative  petition.  Publication,  submission, 
and  ratification  of  amendments  should  be  the  same  as  in 
the  case  of  the  original  charter. 

Tenth.  Arrangement  should  be  made  for  total  re- 
vision as  distinct  from  amendment.  The  system  of  re- 
vision should  not  be  unlike  the  method  of  adopting  an 
original  charter.  The  local  legislative  authority  should 
have  the  power  to  submit  the  question  of  revision;  and 
the  people  should  have  the  authority  to  propose  the  same 
question  by  the  initiative  petition.  The  charter  conven- 
tion, together  with  the  features  already  considered, 
should  be  used  in  charter  revision. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES 


117 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES 

1  Compare  Wilcox's  The  American  City,  pp.  313,  314;  Howe's  The  City, 
the  Hope  of  Democracy,  pp.  160,  164,  170;  Bowe's  Problems  of  City  Gov- 
ernment, pp.  121,  122;  Eaton's  The  Government  of  Municipalities,  pp.  13- 
15,  27;  Parson's  The  City  for  the  People,  pp.  405-409;  Oberholtzer 's  The 
Progress  of  Home  Rule  in  Cities  in  the  Chicago  Conference  for  Good  City 
Government   (1904),  pp.  168,  169;  Goodnow's  Municipal  Government,  pp. 
94,  95;  Deming's  Government  of  American  Cities,  pp.  91,  92;  Goodnow's 
Municipal  Home  Eule,  pp.  8,  9;  Wileox's  The  Municipal  Program  in  the 
Chicago  Conference  for  Good  City  Government  (1904),  p.  183;  Binkerd's 
Home  Eule  For  Cities,  an  address  before  the  Annual  Conference  of  Mayors 
at  Utica,  New  York,  in  1912,  pp.  5,  6. 

2  Beach's  Public  Corporations,  Vol.  I,  Sec.  6. 

s  See  Hanson  vs.  City  of  Cresco,  132  Iowa  533,  at  537-540;  Wells  vs. 
Stomback,  59  Iowa  376;  Township  of  West  Bend  vs.  Munch,  52  Iowa  132; 
and  Dillon's  Municipal  Corporations  (fifth  edition),  Vol.  I,  pp.  58,  59,  60, 
62,  63,  67,  68. 

*  Wilcox's  The  American  City,  pp.  313,  314. 

5  Deming's  Government  of  American  Cities,  p.  96;  Munro's  The  Govern- 
ment of  American  Cities,  pp.  61,  62. 

6  The  writer  is  using  self-government  here  in  the  sense  in  which  he  has 
defined  it  in  the  text,  that  is,  in  the  sense  of  local  autonomy.     This  distinc- 
tion should  be  carefully  noted  or  the  paragraph  may  be  confusing. 

•-  7  See  the  discussion  in  Goodnow  's  The  Place  of  the  Council  and  of  the 
Mayor  in  the  Organization  of  Municipal  Government  in  the  Indianapolis 
Conference  for  Good  City  Government  (1898),  pp.  71-73. 

8  Munro's  The  Government  of  American  Cities,  pp.  377-380;  Goodnow's 
Municipal  Home  Eule,  pp.  5,  6. 

»  Oberholtzer^  Home  Eule  for  our  American  Cities  in  the  Annals  of  the 
America^  ^ca^e^iy  j>f  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  736; 
Bowman's  The  Administration  of  Iowa  in  the  Columbia  University  Studies 
in  History,  Economics  and  Public  Law,  Vol.  XVIII,  pp.  16,  17. 

!o  For  a  thorough  and  detailed  discussion  of  the  historic  development  of 

119 


120  APPLIED  HISTORY 

the  local  areas  see  Dillon's  Municipal  Corporations  (fifth  edition),  Vol.  I, 
pp.  1-56. 

For  a  statement  of  the  importance  of  the  historical  development  of  the 
local  areas,  see  State  vs.  Barker,  116  Iowa  96,  at  100,  101. 

11  Goodnow's  Municipal  Home  Eule,  pp.  2,  11,  12,  99,  100;  State  vs. 
Barker,  116  Iowa  96,  at  101. 

"Goodnow's  Municipal  Home  Eule,  pp.  11,  12,  109,  110. 

is  Goodnow's  Municipal  Government,  p.  68;  also,  Goodnow's  Municipal 
Home  Eule,  pp.  13,  14,  15,  99,  100. 

i*  Goodnow's  Municipal  Home  Eule,  pp.  13,  15;  Goodnow's  Municipal 
Government,  pp.  65,  67. 

i«s  Goodnow  's  City  Government  in  the  United  States,  pp.  31-33 ;  Good- 
now's  Municipal  Government,  pp.  78,  79. 

16  Goodnow 's  City  Government  in  the  United  States,  p.  35. 

17  Dillon's  Municipal  Corporations  (fifth  edition),  Vol.  I,  pp.  85-88. 
is  Goodnow's  Municipal  Home  Eule,  pp.  15,  16. 

i»  Goodnow's  Municipal  Home  Eule,  pp.  100,  101. 

20  Commonwealth  vs.  City  of  Boxbury,  9  Gray  (Massachusetts)  451,  foot- 
note on  p.  511. 

21  Goodnow's  Municipal  Home  Eule,  footnote,  p.  100. 

22  Town  of  North-Hempstead  vs.  Town  of  Hempstead,  2  Wendell  (New 
York)  109,  at  135. 

23  Goodnow 's  Municipal  Home  Eule,  p.  13. 

24  Jackson  vs.  Schoonmaker,  2  Johnson  (New  York)  230,  at  232,  233. 

25  Goodnow 's  Municipal  Home  Eule,  pp.  13,  101. 

26  Oberholtzer's  Home  Eule  for  our  American  Cities  in  the  Annals  of  the 
American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  736. 

27  Goodnow's  City  Government  in  the  United  States,  p.  46. 

28 Dillon's  Municipal  Corporations  (fifth  edition),  Vol.  I,  pp.  79,  80; 
Goodnow's  City  Government  in  the  United  States,  p.  46. 

2»  Goodnow 's  City  Government  in  the  United  States,  p.  47. 

so  Goodnow's  City  Government  in  the  United  States,  pp.  47,  48,  52-55. 

si  See  Eowe's  Problems  of  City  Government,  pp.  122-125;  Deming's  The 
Government  of  American  Cities,  pp.  87-91;  Wilcox's  The  Study  of  City 
Government,  pp.  87-89. 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  121 

32  Scattered  throughout  the  statutes  of  Iowa  during  this  period  are  to  be 
found  about  forty-five  special  acts  incorporating  towns  and  cities. —  Laws  of 
Iowa,  1838-1839,  pp.  248,  265;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1839-1840,  pp.  72,  124; 
Laws  of  Iowa,  1840-1841,  pp.  33,  88,  97;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1841-1842,  pp.  14, 
41,  74,  107 ;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1843-1844,  p.  156 ;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1845-1846,  p. 
114;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1846-1847,  pp.  49,  95,  104,  154;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1848- 
1849,  p.  18;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1850-1851,  pp.  84,  110,  142,  195;  Laws  of  Iowa, 
1852-1853,  pp.  49,  99,  108;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1854-1855,  pp.  9,  20,  97,  123, 
142;  Laws  of  Iowa  (extra  session),  1856,  p.  52;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1856-1857, 
pp.  33,  41,  51,  107,  143,  159,  176,  208,  245,  281,  325,  359,  416.  See  also 
Constitution  of  Iowa,  1846,  Art.  IX,  Sec.  2. 

sa  The  session  laws  of  1842-1843  alone  contain  amendments  to  the  char- 
ters of  Farmington,  Dubuque,  Mount  Pleasant,  Fort  Madison,  Salem,  and 
Keosauqua. —  Laws  of  Iowa,  1842-1843,  pp.  23,  27,  32,  38,  40,  44. 

a*  Laws  of  Iowa,  1839-1840,  p.  124;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1845-1846,  p.  115; 
Laws  of  Iowa,  1846-1847,  p.  105;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1852-1853,  p.  89;  Laws  of 
Iowa,  1856-1857,  p.  346. 

35  Constitution  of  Iowa,  1857,  Art.  Ill,  Sec.  30. 
se  Laws  of  Iowa,  1858,  p.  343. 

37  Laws  of  Iowa  (extra  session),  1862,  p.  23. 

38  Iowa  Official  Register,  1913-1914,  p.  707. 
3»  Laws  of  Iowa,  1858,  p.  363. 

40  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  Ch.  48,  p.  38. 

41  Munro  's  The  Government  of  American  Cities,  p.  53. 

42  Constitutional  Home  Eule  for  Ohio  Cities,  issued  by  The  Municipal 
Association  of  Cleveland,  1912,  pp.  6-11. 

43  Constitutional  Home  Eule  for  Ohio  Cities,  issued  by  The  Municipal 
Association  of  Cleveland,  1912,  pp.  11-14;   Wilcox's  The  American  City, 
p.  318. 

44Kowe's  Problems  of  City  Government,  p.  129.  There  are  only  fifty- 
seven  counties  in  the  entire  State  of  California;  they  have  been  divided  into 
fifty-three  classes.  The  method  of  classifying  according  to  population  is 
very  interesting.  For  instance,  the  forty-sixth  class  contains  all  counties 
with  a  population  between  4,930  and  4,980 ;  the  thirty-third  class  consists  of 
all  counties  having  between  10,030  and  10,070  inhabitants.— Oberholtzer 's 
The  Progress  of  Home  Eule  in  Cities  in  the  Chicago  Conference  for  Good 
City  Government  (1904),  p.  172. 

45  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  16. 


122  APPLIED  HISTORY 

46  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  27. 

47  Constitutional  Home  Eule  for  Ohio  Cities,  issued  by  The  Municipal 
Association  of  Cleveland,  1912,  pp.   14-16;   Wilcox's  The  American  City, 
pp.  319,  320;  Oberholtzer  Js  The  Progress  of  Some  Eule  in  Cities  in  the 
Chicago  Conference  for  Good  City  Government   (1904),  p.  172.     Munro's 
The  Government  of  American  Cities,  pp.  56-58. 

48Kowe's  Problems  of  City  Government,  pp.  132,  133;  Wilcox's  The 
American  City,  pp.  322,  323;  Munro's  The  Government  of  American  Cities, 
pp.  58,  59. 

4»  Munro  's  The  Government  of  American  Cities,  pp.  59,  60. 

so  Macy  's  Institutional  Beginnings  in  a  Western  State  in  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University  Studies  (1884),  Vol.  II,  Second  Series,  No.  VII,  pp. 
5-38. 

si  Code  of  1851,  Ch.  15,  p.  21;  Constitution  of  Iowa,  1857,  Art.  IX, 
Sees.  1-10. 

52  See  Shambaugh  's  Documentary  Material  Relating  to  the  History  of 
Iowa,  Vol.  I,  pp.  47-55. 

53  See  Constitution  of  Iowa,  1857,  Art.  IV. 

54  Code  of  1897,  p.  146;  Horack 's  Government  of  Iowa,  pp.  96-101. 

55  Horack  's  Government  of  Iowa,  pp.  93-101. 

56  Code  of  1897,  pp.  444,  445. 

57  Brown  vs.  Duffus,  66  Iowa  193,  at  195-197. 

58  Constitution  of  Iowa,  1857,  Art.  IV,  Sec.  22. 

so  Constitution  of  Iowa,  1857,  Art.  IV,  See.  22,  Art.  V,  Sec.  12. 
eo  Code  of  1897,  Sec.  1064;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1913,  pp.  88-90. 
ei  Code  of  1897,  pp.  146-149. 
62  Horack 's  Government  of  Iowa,  pp.  93-101. 

es  Code  of  1897,  pp.  146-149 ;  see  also  Iowa  Official  Register,  1913-1914, 
pp.  770-790. 

64  Laws  of  Iowa,  1909,  p.  11;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1913,  pp.  9-11. 
65Cooley's  Constitutional  Limitations  (seventh  edition),  p.  261. 
ee  Constitution  of  Iowa,  1857,  Art.  Ill,  Sec.  1. 
67  Dillon's  Municipal  Corporations  (fifth  edition),  Vol.  I,  p.  57. 
es  Dillon's  Municipal  Corporations  (fifth  edition),  Vol.  I,  p.  61. 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  123 

6»  Compare  with  Dillon's  Municipal  Corporations  (fifth  edition),  Vol.  I, 
pp.  62-67. 

TO  United  States  vs.  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Bailroad  Co.,  17  Wallace  322, 
at  329. 

71  Constitution  of  Iowa,  1857,  Art.  VIII,  Sec.  4,  Art.  XI,  Sec.  3. 

72  Quoted  in  State  vs.  Barker,  116  Iowa  96,  at  104. 

73  State  vs.  Barker,  116  Iowa  96,  at  105. 

7*  See  State  vs.  Forkner,  94  Iowa  1 ;  State  vs.  City  of  Des  Moines,  103 
Iowa  76;  State  vs.  Barker,  116  Iowa  96. 

75  State  vs.  Barker,  116  Iowa  96,  at  106. 

76  State  vs.  Barker,  116  Iowa  96,  at  103. 

77  State  vs.  City  of  Des  Moines,  103  Iowa  76. 

78  Hanson  vs.  Vernon,  27  Iowa  28,  at  73;  State  vs.  Forkner,  94  Iowa  1, 
at  14. 

79  State  vs.  Barker,  116  Iowa  96,  at  102. 

so  Compare  with  Goodnow's  Municipal  Problems,  pp.  23,  24. 

si  Of  course  the  people  do  participate  in  local  referenda  from  time  to 
time,  but  this  is  for  the  most  part  at  the  discretion  of  the  legislature. 

The  Constitution  of  Iowa  gives  the  people  of  a  local  area  the  right  of 
referendum  in  but  one  matter,  namely,  the  change  of  the  boundaries  of  an 
established  county. —  Constitution  of  Iowa,  1857,  Art.  Ill,  Sec.  30. 

82  For  an  account  of  the  creation  of  the  home  rule  charter  system  see 
Oberholtzer  's  Home  Rule  for  Our  American  Cities  in  the  Annals  of  the 
American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  748-752; 
Wilcox's  The  American  City,  pp.  323—326;  Deming's  The  Government  of 
American  Cities,  pp.  92,  93.    See  also  Eowe's  Problems  of  City  Government, 
p.  134;  Parson's  The  City  for  the  People,  pp.  415,  416;  Oberholtzer 's  The 
Progress  of  Home  Rule  in  Cities  in  the  Chicago  Conference  for  Good  City 
Government  (1904),  pp.  172,  173. 

83  Oberholtzer 's  Home  Rule  for  Our  American  Cities  in  the  Annals  of 
the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  748, 
749;  Wileox's  The  American  City,  pp.  323-326. 

s*  See  Oberholtzer 's  Home  Rule  for  Our  American  Cities  in  the  Annals 
of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  749. 

85  Constitution  of  Missouri,  1875,  Art.  IX,  Sec.  20. 

86  Constitution  of  Missouri,  1875,  Art.  IX,  Sec.  25. 


124  APPLIED  HISTORY 

87  Oberholtzer 's  Home  Rule  for  Our  American  Cities  in  the  Annals  of  the 
American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  750. 

ss  Oberholtzer  's  Home  Eule  for  Our  American  Cities  in  the  Annals  of  the 
American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  750,  751  • 
Deming's  The  Government  of  American  Cities,  pp.  93,  94. 

The  following  data  taken  from  Oberholtzer 's  Home  Eule  for  Our  Amer- 
ican Cities  in  the  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social 
Science,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  751,  shows  the  election  returns  on  the  freeholders' 
charter : 

ORIGINAL  RETURNS 

New   Charter    Yes  — 11,858  No  — 11,300 

Separation  Scheme    Yes  —  11,725  No  —  14,142 

CORRECTED  RETURNS 

New  Charter  Yes  — 11,309  No—  8,088 

Separation  Scheme  Yes  — 12,181  No  — 10,928 

Commenting  upon  the  home  rule  charter  of  St.  Louis  in  1893,  Professor 
Ellis  P.  Oberholtzer  said: 

"This  charter  has  been  recognized  generally  by  authorities  on  city  gov- 
ernment as  the  best  American  model  for  charter-makers.  The  city,  however, 
as  will  appear  after  a  consideration  of  the  wording  of  the  constitution,  is 
still  bound  in  some  measure  by  the  State  Legislature.  It  is  not  very  def- 
initely settled  just  what  powers  the  Legislature  would  have  in  the  case. ' ' — 
Home  Eule  for  Our  American  Cities  in  the  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 
of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  751. 

89  Constitution  of  Missouri,  1875,  Art.  IX,  See.  16. 

90  Wilcox's  The  American  City,  p.  325. 

si  Compare  Constitution  of  Missouri,  1875,  Art.  IX,  Sec.  20,  with  Sec.  16. 

92  Oberholtzer 's  The  Progress  of  Home  Eule  in  Cities  in  the  Chicago 
Conference  for  Good  City  Government  (1904),  pp.  172,  173. 

93  For  an  account  of  the  adoption  of  the  home  rule  charter  system  in 
California  see  Oberholtzer 's  Home  Eule  for  Our  American  Cities  in  the 
Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill, 
pp.  752-756;  Wilcox's  The  American  City,  pp.  326-328;  Parson's  The  City 
for  the  People,  pp.  418,  419. 

»4  Oberholtzer 's  Home  Eule  for  Our  American  Cities  in  the  Annals  of 
the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  752, 
753;  Denman's  Home  Eule  Charters  in  California  in  The  Annals  of  the 
American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  XXIV,  p.  400. 

"The  charter  of  San  Francisco  at  this  time  was  a  volume  of  319  pages 
of  fine  print.  Originally  it  had  covered  only  thirty-one  pages,  but  there 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  125 

were  over  a  hundred  supplemental  acts  which  led  to  many  evils  and  much 

confusion The  laws  which  were  responsible  for  this  condition 

of  things  it  was  further  charged  had  been  framed  by  about  a  half  a  dozen 
men  who  took  them  up  to  Sacramento  and  had  them  adopted  by  the  Legis- 
lature without  the  wish,  knowledge  or  consent  of  the  people." — Ober- 
holtzer's  Home  Rule  for  Our  American  Cities  in  the  Annals  of  the  American 
Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  752,  753. 

SB  Oberholtzer 's  Home  Rule  for  Our  American  Cities  in  the  Annals  of  the 
American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  753 ;  Consti- 
tution of  California,  Art.  XI,  See.  8. 

»6  The  votes  on  the  different  charters,  as  given  in  Oberholtzer 's  Home 
Rule  for  Our  American  Cities  in  the  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of 
Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  755,  were  as  follows: 

September  8,  March  3,  April  12, 

1880  1883  1887 

Against     19,143  9,368  14,905 

For    4,144  9,336  10,896 


Majority  against    14,999  32  4,009 

It  was  claimed  that  the  freeholders  provided  too  radical  changes  in  their 
proposed  charters  for  ratification  by  popular  vote. 

97  Oberholtzer 's  The  Progress  of  Home  Rule  for  Cities  in  the  Chicago 
Conference  for  Good  City  Government  (1904),  p.  173.  Compare  Wilcox's 
The  American  City,  p.  328. 

»8  Wilcox's  The  American  City,  p.  328. 

»»  Oberholtzer 's  Home  Rule  for  Our  American  Cities  in  the  Annals  of  the 
American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  760,  761; 
Wilcox's  The  American  City,  p.  328. 

100  Constitution  of  Minnesota,  Art.   IV,  Sec.  36 ;   Revised  Statutes  of 
Minnesota,  1905,  Sees.  748,  749,  755;  Wilcox's  The  American  City,  p.  329; 
Howe's  The  City  the  Hope  of  Democracy,  pp.  161,  162. 

101  Compare  the  Constitution  of  Colorado,  Art.  XX,  with  the  Constitution 
of  Missouri,  Art.  IX,  Sees.  16,  17,  20-25. 

102  Constitution  of  Colorado,  Art.  XX,  Sec.  6;  Oberholtzer 's  The  Progress 
of  Home  Rule  in  Cities  in  the  Chicago  Conference  for  Good  City  Government 
(1904),  pp.  174,  175;  Wilcox's  The  American  City,  pp.  329-331. 

103  Constitution  of  Oregon,  Art.  XI,  Sec.  2;  Wilcox's  The  American  City, 
p.  331;  Oberholtzer 's  The  Progress  of  Home  Rule  in  Cities  in  the  Chicago 
Conference  for  Good  City  Government  (1904),  p.  175;  Haines  vs.  City  of 
Forest  Grove,  54  Oregon  443,  at  446. 


126  APPLIED  HISTORY 

104  Constitution  of  Oklahoma,  Art.  XVIII,  Sees.  3  (a),  3  (b) ;  Deming's 
The  Government  of  American  Cities,  p.  95. 

105  Constitution  of  Michigan,  Art.  VIII,   Sec.  21;   Laws  of  Michigan, 

1909,  Art.  No.  279  (Public  Acts). 

loe  Laws  of  Wisconsin,  1911,  Ch.  476;  Laws  of  Wisconsin,  1911,  Joint 
Resolution,  pp.  31-35;  Laws  of  Wisconsin,  1913,  Ch.  770. 

107  Laws  of  Texas,  1913,  pp.  307-317. 

The  first  paragraph  of  this  act  is  a  verbatim  repetition  of  the  home  rule 
amendment  of  1912. 

108  Constitution  of  Arizona,  Art.  XIII,  Sees.  2,  3 ;  Eevised  Statutes  of 
Arizona,  1913,  Ch.  16,  Title  VII,  pp.  706-708. 

109  Constitution  of  Ohio,  Art.  XVIII,  Sees.  8,  9. 
no  Constitution  of  Nebraska,  Art.  Xa. 

in  Wilcox's  The  American  City,  p.  325. 

112  Peters 's  Home  "Rule  Charter  Movements  in  Missouri  with  Special  Ref- 
erence to  Kansas  City  in  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political 
and  Social  Science,  Vol.  XXVII,  p.  158;  Abstract  of  the  Thirteenth  Census, 

1910,  Supplement  -for  Iowa,  p.  64. 

us  Charter  and  Eevised  Ordinances  of  Kansas  City,  1909,  pp.  15,  16. 
For  a  complete  discussion  of  the  home  rule  charter  fight  in  Kansas  City  see 
Peters 's  Home  Rule  Charter  Movements  in  Missouri  with  Special  Reference 
to  Kansas  City  in  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and 
Social  Science,  Vol.  XXVII,  pp.  155-167. 

11*  Abstract  of  the  Thirteenth  Census,  1910,  Supplement  -for  Iowa,  p.  64. 

115  < { Popular  government  is  really  becoming  an  actuality  in  St.  Louis. 
It  has  within  six  months  adopted  an  initiative  and  referendum  amendment  to 
the  charter,  authorized  the  drafting  of  a  new  charter,  secured  a  fairly  effec- 
tive primary  act  and  elected  as  strong  a  municipal  ticket  as  could  be  secured 
from  the  candidates  presented." — Baldwin's  The  St.  Louis  Election  in  the 
National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  II,  pp.  492,  493. 

For  a  brief  statement  relative  to  the  adoption  of  the  new  charter  of  St. 
Louis  see  The  American  Political  Science  Review,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  454. 

lie  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  591. 

117  Charter  and  Revised  Ordinances  of  Kansas  City,  1909,  pp.  19-23. 

us  Quoted  in  Constitutional  Home  Rule  for  Ohio  Cities,  issued  by  The 
Municipal  Association  of  Cleveland,  1912,  p.  25. 

us  Reed's  Municipal  Home  Rule  in  California  in  the  National  Municipal 
Review,  Vol.  I,  pp.  570,  571. 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  127 

120  The  First  Short  Ballot  County  (publication  of  National  Short  Ballot 
Organization)  ;  The  American  Political  Science  Review,  Vol.  VII,  p.  413. 

121  Santa  Barbara,  Santa  Eosa,  Napa,  San  Diego,  and  Alameda  are  at 
present  working  on  revisions. —  Letter  of  June  1,  1914,  from  City  Clerk  of 
Santa  Barbara  to  Benj.  F.  Shambaugh;  letter  of  June  16,  1914,  from  City 
Clerk  of  Santa  Eosa  to  Benj.  F.  Shambaugh;  letter  of  June  1,  1914,  from 
City  Clerk  of  Napa  to  Benj.  F.  Shambaugh;  letter  of  June  10,  1914,  from 
City  Clerk  of  San  Diego  to  Benj.  F.  Shambaugh;  letter  of  June  6,  1914, 
from  City  Clerk  of  Alameda  to  Benj.  F.  Shambaugh. 

122  Keed  'a  Municipal  Home  Rule  in  California  in  the  National  Municipal 
Review,  Vol.  I,  p.  570. 

123  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  II,  No.  1,  Supplement,  p.  7. 

i24Eeed's  Municipal  Home  Rule  in  California  in  the  National  Municipal 
Review,  Vol.  I,  pp.  571,  572. 

The  following  quotations  from  letters  from  city  clerks  show  something 
of  the  individual  success  of  the  municipal-made  charters: 

"As  it  is  only  three  years  since  Monterey  adopted  its  commission  form 
of  government,  I  am  not  prepared  to  speak  authoritatively  upon  its  merits, 
but  it  is  undoubtedly  a  considerable  improvement  upon  the  general  state  law 
under  which  the  city  government  formerly  operated. ' ' 

"As  to  the  success  of  Home  Eule  in  this  city  [Alameda],  I  think  I  can 
safely  say  that  there  is  no  question  but  that  the  system  has  been  a  successful 
one.  No  city  now  enjoying  home  rule,  I  am  sure,  would  desire  to  go  back 
under  the  supervision  of  the  State.  Greater  freedom  is  enjoyed,  and  greater 
opportunity  to  work  out  individual  needs  and  problems. " 

125  Constitution  of  California,  Art.  XI,  Sec.  6,  original  section. 

126  Kennedy  vs.  Miller,  97  California  429 ;  Davies  vs.  City  of  Los  Angeles, 
86  California  37. 

127  Constitution  of  California,  Art.  XI,  Sec.  6,  as  amended  in  1896. 

128  For  a  general  discussion  of  this  development  in  California,  see  Eeed  's 
Municipal  Home  Rule  in  California  in  the  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol. 
I,  pp.  573-575. 

129  Abstract  of  the  Thirteenth  Census  of  the  United  States,  1910,  Supple- 
ment for  Iowa,  p.  75. 

130  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  I,  p.  120 ;  University  of  Washington 
Extension  Journal,  Vol.  I,  No.  3,  July,  1914,  pp.  166-168. 

isi  Charter  of  the  City  of  SpoTcane,  1910,  pp.  3,  4;  State  ex  rel.  Lambert 
vs.  Superior  Court,  59  Washington  670.  In  regard  to  the  success  of  the  new 


128  APPLIED  HISTORY 

system  the  following  quotation  from  a  letter  from  the  city  clerk  gives  some 
insight  : 

"I  .  .  .  .  believe  that  I  am  voicing  the  sentiments  of  the  majority 
when  I  state  that  it  is  a  vast  improvement  over  the  aldermanic  form  of 
government." — Letter  of  June  9,  1914,  from  City  Clerk  of  Spokane  to 
Benj.  F.  Shambaugh. 

132  University  of  Washington  Extension  Journal,  Vol.   I,  No.   3,  July, 
1914,  pp.  166-168;  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  592;  The  Amer- 
ican Political  Science  Review,  Vol.  VIII,  pp.  453,  454. 

133  Constitutional  Home  Eule  for  Ohio  Cities,  issued  by  The  Municipal 
Association  of  Cleveland,  1912,  pp.  26,  27;  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol. 
I,  p.  120. 

134  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  I,  pp.  109,  110;  Joerns's  Home  Rule 
Charters  in  Minnesota  in  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political 
and  Social  Science,  Vol.  XXIV,  pp.  398-400. 

135  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  I,  p.  109,  Vol.  II,  p.  117. 
ise  Laws  of  Minnesota,  1909,  Ch.  170,  pp.  181-183. 

137  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  I,  p.  476. 

138  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  I,  pp.  110,  287,  480,  708,  Vol.  II,  p. 
675,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  110. 

139  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  I,  p.  110. 

140  Eoberts's  Home  Rule  for  Cities  in  The  Annals  of  the  American  Acad- 
emy of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Vol.  XXIV,  pp.  395,  396;  Constitution 
of  Colorado,  Art.  XX. 

141  Charter  of  the  City  and  County  of  Denver  (revised  and  brought  down 
to  February  17,  1914) ;  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  I,  p.  481,  Vol.  Ill, 
pp.  119,  377. 

Grand  Junction,  also,  has  a  home  rule  charter. 

142  Oberholtzer  's  The  Progress  of  Home  Rule  in  Cities  in  the  Chicago 
Conference  for  Good  City  Government  (1904),  p.  175;  National  Municipal 
Review,  Vol.  II,  pp.  471,  472. 

143  Report  of  the  Commission  Government  Committee  of  the  National 
Municipal  League  in  the  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  I,  p.  47;    The 
American  Political  Science  Review,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  466. 

144  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  I,  p.  46,  Vol.  II,  p.  286,  Vol.  Ill, 
p.  374. 

For  a  discussion  of  the  situation  in  Michigan  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  129 

home  rule  charter  system,  see  Wilcox's  Municipal  Home  Rule  in  the  Publica- 
tions of  the  Michigan  Political  Science  Association,  Vol.  V,  pp.  445-456. 

145  state  ex  rel.  vs.  Thompson,  149  Wisconsin  488 ;  letter  of  July  2,  1914, 
from  Ford  H.  MacGregor  to  Benj.  F.  Shambaugh;  letter  of  June  3,  1914, 
from  Department  of  State,  Wisconsin,  to  Benj.  F.  Shambaugh. 

146  Texas  Municipalities,  No.  2,  June,  1914,  p.  18 ;  National  Municipal 
Review,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  114,  592,  595;  letter  of  June  16,  1914,  from  Herman 
G.  James  to  Benj.  F.  Shambaugh. 

147  Arizona  Republican,  September  12,  1913;   letter  of  June  25,  1914, 
from  City  Clerk  of  Phoenix  to  Benj.  F.  Shambaugh. 

i^s  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  II,  p.  286. 

149  For  a  scattered  account   of  the   actual  growth   of  municipal-made 
charters  in  Ohio,  see  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  I,  pp.  267,  284,  475, 
714,  Vol.  II,  pp.  117,  118,  286,  472,  678,  680,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  116,  118.     See 
also  Gilbertson's  Progressive  Charters  for  Ohio  Cities  in  The  American  City, 
Vol.  IX,  pp.  121-123. 

150  Fesler  's  Progress  of  Municipal  Home  Rule  in  Ohio  in  the  National 
Municipal  Review,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  594,  595;  The  American  Political  Science 
Review,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  452. 

151  Fesler 's  Progress  of  Municipal  Home  Rule  in  Ohio  in  the  National 
Municipal  Review,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  594,  595. 

152  Fesler  'a  Progress  of  Municipal  Home  Rule  in  Ohio  in  the  National 
Municipal  Review,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  595. 

IBS  Gilbertson 's  Progressive  Charters  for  Ohio  Cities  in  The  American 
City,  Vol.  IX,  p.  123. 

154  Letter  of  June  10,  1914,  from  the  City  Clerk  of  Omaha  to  Benj.  F. 
Shambaugh;  letter  of  June  10,  1914,  from  the  City  Clerk  of  Lincoln  to 
Benj.  F.  Shambaugh;  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  II,  p.  682;  Sheldon 
and  Hannan's  Nebraska  Municipalities  in  Nebraska  Legislative  Reference 
Bureau  Bulletin,  No.  5,  p.  10. 

155  Wilcox's  The  American  City,  pp.  322,  323. 

156  Lewisohn  's  Home  Rule  in  New  York  in  the  National  Municipal  Re- 
view, Vol.  II,  pp.  119,  120. 

The  following  planks  appear  in  the  platforms  of  the  leading  parties  of 
New  York  State : 

PROGRESSIVE  PARTY 

"Municipalities  should  be  given  power  to  adopt  and  amend  their  char- 
ters in  matters  pertaining  to  the  powers  and  duties,  the  terms  of  office  and 


130  APPLIED  HISTORY 

compensation  of  officials,  incurring  of  obligations,  methods  and  subjects  of 
local  taxation,  and  the  acquisition  and  management  of  municipal  properties, 
including  public  utilities.  We  are  opposed  to  special  legislation  dealing 
with  such  subjects. " 

REPUBLICAN  PARTY 

"We  favor  granting  to  all  cities  and  villages  adequate  powers  of  self- 
government  and  control  over  their  local  affairs  and  property  and  the  trans- 
action of  municipal  business,  subject  to  proper  constitutional  safeguards 
and  the  general  laws  of  the  state,  but  free  from  legislative  interference  in 
purely  local  matters. ' ' 

DEMOCRATIC    PARTY 

"Home  rule,  so  often  violated  by  the  Eepublican  party,  has  long  been  a 
leading  Democratic  principle.  We  favor  general  legislation  conferring  on 
all  cities  full  powers  of  local  self-government,  to  enable  them  to  control 
their  local  affairs  and  property. " 

—  Quoted  in  the  National  Municipal  Review,  Vol.  II,  p.  119. 

The  following  is  the  program  of  the  Municipal  Government  Association 
of  New  York  State: 

"(1)  Home  rule  for  the  cities,  counties  and  villages  of  New  York 
State  by  the  grant  of  adequate  powers  of  self-government;  (2)  the  passage 
of  legislation  which  shall  allow  the  free  choice  of  municipal  and  local  candi- 
dates in  municipal  and  local  elections  unconfused  by  the  presence  of  party 
names  or  emblems  upon  the  ballot;  (3)  the  enactment  of  a  general  municipal 
corporations  act  enabling  the  voters  of  a  city  to  adopt  a  commission  form  of 
government  or  any  other  simplified  form  not  inconsistent  with  the  constitu- 
tion or  general  laws  of  the  state;  and  (4)  constitutional  amendments,  if 
necessary,  to  guarantee  home  rule  in  the  municipal  subdivisions  of  the 
state." — Lewisohn's  Home  Eule  in  New  YorTc  in  the  National  Municipal 
Eeview,  Vol.  II,  p.  119. 

157  Town  Charter  Law  of  Louisiana,  1898,  with  amendments  down  to 
1904,  Sec.  43,  p.  25. 

IBS  Fairlie 's  Home  Eule  in  Michigan  in  The  American  Political  Science 
Eeview,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  122,  123. 

i5»  New  Jersey  Act  Relative  to  the  Government  of  Cities,  1911,  with 
amendments  down  to  1913,  Sec.  18,  pp.  22,  23,  24. 

leo  Constitution  of  Virginia,  Art.  VIII,  Sees.  117,  119,  120,  as  amended 
1912;  Shaw's  Home  Eule  in  Virginia  in  the  National  Municipal  Review, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  709,  710. 

i6i  Constitution  of  Ohio,  with  amendments  down  to  1914,  Art.  XVIII, 
Sec.  2 ;  An  Act  to  Provide  Optional  Plans  of  Government  for  Municipalities, 
Ohio,  1913;  Lowrie's  Ohio  Model  Charter  Law  in  The  American  Political 
Science  Review,  Vol.  VII,  pp.  422-424. 


HOME  RULE  IN  IOWA  131 

162  The  material  for  this  chapter  and  the  chart  was  taken  from  the  fol- 
lowing sources:  Constitution  of  Missouri,  with  amendments  down  to  1909, 
Art.  IX,  Sees.  16-25;  Charter  and  Eevised  Ordinances  of  Kansas  City,  1909, 
pp.  76-89;  Constitution  of  California,  with  amendments  down  to  1914,  Art. 
XI,  Sees.  7%,  8,  &y2',  Constitution  of  Washington,  with  amendments  down 
to  1914,  Art.  XI,  Sec.  10;  Enabling  Act  of  the  State  of  Washington  and 
Charter  of  the  City  of  Tacoma,  1909,  pp.  5-12;  Acts  of  the  Legislature, 
1890,  p.  218;  Eemington  and  Ballinger's  Code,  Vol.  II,  Ch.  VII;  Constitu- 
tion of  Minnesota,  Art.  IV,  Sec.  36;  General  Statutes  of  Minnesota,  Sees. 
1342-1353;  General  Laws  of  Minnesota,  1909,  Ch.  170;  Constitution  of 
Colorado,  Art.  XX;  Amendment  to  Section  6  of  Article  XX  of  the  Consti- 
tution Granting  Home  Eule  to  Cities  and  Towns;  Constitution  of  Oregon, 
Art.  XI,  Sec.  2,  as  amended  in  1906;  Lord's  Oregon  Laws,  Sees.  3481,  3482; 
Acme  Dairy  Co.  vs.  Astoria,  49  Oregon  524;  Haines  vs.  City  of  Forest  Grove, 
54  Oregon  443;  Constitution  of  Oklahoma,  1907,  Art.  18,  Sees.  3  (a)  and 
3  (b)  ;  Constitution  of  Michigan,  Art.  VIII,  Sec.  21;  Laws  of  Michigan, 
1909,  pp.  486,  497-511;  Laws  Eelating  to  the  Incorporation  and  General 
Powers  of  Cities  in  Michigan  (Revision  of  1913),  Part  III,  pp.  146-167; 
Laws  of  Wisconsin,  1907,  p.  206;  Laws  of  Wisconsin,  1911,  Ch.  476,  pp.  558- 
562;  Laws  of  Texas,  1913,  Ch.  147,  pp.  307-317;  Constitution  of  Arizona, 
Art.  XIII,  Sec.  2  ;  Eevised  Statutes  of  Arizona,  1913,  Ch.  XVI,  pp.  706-708  ; 
Constitution  of  Ohio,  with  amendments  down  to  1914,  Art.  XVIII,  Sees.  8, 
9;  Constitution  of  Nebraska,  Art.  XIa. 

IBS  Maltbie's  City  Made  Charters  in  Yale  Eeview,  Vol.  XII,  pp.  386,  387. 
164  See  p.  57. 

ie5  Formerly  the  members  of  the  charter  boards  in  Minnesota  were  ap- 
pointed for  six  years. 

166  Constitution  of  Oregon,  Art.  XI,  Sec.  5. 

167  Constitution  of  Ohio,  with  amendments  down  to  1914,  Art.  XVIII, 
Sec.  3.    The  Supreme  Court  has  decided  in  a  recent  decision  that  this  section 
is  not  self-executory.  —  State  ex  rel.  City  of  Toledo  vs.  Lynch,  88  Ohio  St. 
74. 

168  Constitution  of  Colorado,  Art.  XX,  Sec.  6. 

leo  Amendment  to  Sec.  6  of  Art.  XX  of  the  Constitution  of  Colorado. 


Progress  of  Municipal  Home  Eule  in  Ohio  in  The  American 
City,  Vol.  X,  p.  151. 

i7i  State  ex  rel.  vs.  Field,  99  Missouri  352.  See  also  Ewing  vs.  Hob- 
litzelle,  85  Missouri  64;  Kansas  City  ex  rel.  vs.  Scarrit,  127  Missouri  642; 
State  ex  rel.  vs.  Railroad  Co.,  117  Missouri  1;  State  vs.  Bennett,  102  Mis- 


132  APPLIED  HISTORY 

souri  356;  Westport  vs.  Kansas  City,  103  Missouri  141;  St.  Louis  vs.  Bell 
Tel.  Co.,  96  Missouri  623;  State  ex  rel.  vs.  St.  Louis,  145  Missouri  551; 
Kansas  City  vs.  Stegmiller,  151  Missouri  189;  Young  vs.  Kansas  City,  152 
Missouri  661;  State  ex  rel.  vs.  Telephone  Co.,  189  Missouri  83. 

172  Kennedy  vs.  Miller,  97  California  429.     See  also  Davies  vs.  City  of 
Los  Angeles,  86  California  37;   Fragley  vs.  Phelan,  126  California  383; 
People  ex  rel.  vs.  Oakland,  123  California  598;  Morton  vs.  Broderick,  118 
California  474;   Popper  vs.  Broderick,  123  California  456;   Elder  vs.  Mc- 
Dougald,  145  California  740;  Byrne  vs.  Drain,  127  California  663;  People 
ex  rel.  vs.  Williamson,  135  California  415;    Fritz  vs.  San  Francisco,   132 
California  373. 

For  the  opinion  of  the  Washington  court  on  this  matter  see:  State  ex 
rel.  vs.  Warner,  4  Washington  773;  Tacoma  vs.  The  State,  4  Washington 
64;  State  ex  rel.  Seattle  vs.  Carson,  6  Washington  250;  Denver  et  al.  vs. 
City  of  Spokane  Falls,  7  Washington  226;  Scurry  vs.  City  of  Seattle,  8 
Washington  278;  Reeves  vs.  Anderson,  13  Washington  17;  Tacoma  Light  Co. 
vs.  City  of  Tacoma,  14  Washington  288 ;  State  ex  rel.  vs.  Doherty,  16  Wash- 
ington 382;  City  of  Seattle  vs.  Chin  Let,  19  Washington  38;  State  ex  rel. 
vs.  Weir,  26  Washington  501;  City  of  Seattle  vs.  Clark,  28  Washington  717; 
State  vs.  Ide,  35  Washington  576 ;  Hindman  vs.  Boyd,  42  Washington  17. 

173  Fitzgerald  vs.  City  of  Cleveland  (decided  by  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio, 
Aug.  26,  1913),  103  Northeastern  Reporter  512,  at  515,  516. 

174  Constitution  of  California  with  amendments  down  to  1914,  Art.  XI, 
Sec.  7%. 

ITS  For  a  general  discussion  of  State  and  local  functions,  see  Goodnow's 
City  Government,  Ch.  II;  Wilcox's  The  Study  of  City  Government,  Ch.  II; 
Dillon's  Municipal  Corporations  (fifth  edition),  Vol.  I,  Chs.  XV-XVIII; 
Fairlie's  Municipal  Administration,  pp.  125-313;  Maltbie's  City-Made  Char- 
ters in  the  Yale  Eeview,  Vol.  XIII,  pp.  397-400;  McLaughlin  and  Hart's 
Cyclopedia  of  American  Government,  Vol.  II,  pp.  475-477 ;  Munro  's  Govern- 
ment of  American  Cities,  pp.  64-67. 

176  Fitzgerald  vs.  City  of  Cleveland  (decided  by  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio, 
Aug.  26,  1913),  103  Northeastern  Reporter  512,  at  519. 

177  Abstract  of  the  Thirteenth  Census  of  the  United  States,  1910,  Supple- 
ment for  Iowa,  pp.  568-570;  Iowa  Official  Register,  1913-1914,  p.  707;  Iowa 
Educational  Directory,  1913-1914,  p.  106. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


JUL 


20m-ll,'20 


YC  09437 


TY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


